The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof has an excellent column Sunday on the reprehensible religious bigotry attached to the continued smearing of Barack Obama. Kristof’s main point is that religious bigotry has become a growing and all too accepted framework for smearing political candidates. He might have added that the main-stream media have been complicit in helping to enforce a narrow religious litmus test on both parties.
The whispering campaigns allege that Mr. Obama is a secret Muslim planning to impose Islamic law on the country. Incredibly, he is even accused — in earnest! — of being the Antichrist.
Proponents of this theory offer detailed theological explanations for why he is the Antichrist, and the proof is that he claims to be Christian — after all, the Antichrist would say that, wouldn’t he? The rumors circulate enough that Glenn Beck of CNN asked the Rev. John Hagee, a conservative evangelical, what the odds are that Mr. Obama is the Antichrist.
These charges are fanatical, America’s own equivalent of the vicious accusations about Jews that circulate in some Muslim countries. They are less a swipe at one candidate than a calumny against an entire religion. They underscore that for many bigoted Americans in the 21st century, calling someone a Muslim is still a slur.
Kristof’s column is worth reading through both for these insights and his history of how religious intolerance and sectarian bigotry have been used throughout our history to corrupt the public’s view about which religious views are politically acceptable.
You would think America would be beyond this history, but with George Bush’s open pandering to the religious right, and his thinly veiled bribing of Republican-leaning religious groups through the White House’ "faith-based initiatives" we seem to have slipped backwards. Unfortunately, key media elements have been willing accomplices in an effort to impose a relatively narrow religious test on our politics.
We’re all familiar with the Republican candidates pandering to the religious right. Even before Mike Huckabee confirmed that there was a substantial conservative/fundamentalist Christian bloc waiting to be tapped, Giuliani couldn’t wait to tell us how thrilled he was to receive the endorsement of right winger Pat Robertson. And Mitt Romney was so concerned about Huckabee’s appeal to the evangelical Christians and their apprehension about Mormons that he gave a speech expressly designed to assure them he was one of them. In America, it’s not enough just to be religious, or even just "Christian." You have to adhere to particular kinds of Christianity that share, as Peterr noted of Romney’s words, "a common creed" of Christian faith.
More recently, we’ve watched the embarrassing spectacle of the supposedly independent John McCain humiliating himself by not only accepting but actively soliciting the endorsement of John Hagee, a religious bigot well known for his hate-filled screeds against Catholics and only slightly less known for his [updated from comments] cynical support for Israel and a form of Zionism. Even after publicity of Hagee’s extemist view forced McCain to reject [some of] the speech but not the speaker, McCain also sought the approval of another far-right extremist, and a further right-wing group (h/t Wordsmith), some of whose founders and members where hardly less extremist and exclusionary in their religious views.
The fact that the media has generally failed to criticize McCain for this right wing religious pandering, or to criticize the religious bigotry that creates the pressure to pander, is bad enough. The media itself has aggravated the matter. Tim Russert’s badgering of Barack Obama during the last debate was designed to bully a candidate into renouncing an outspoken Muslim and to force a reaffirmation of accepted Christian beliefs.
CNN was equally to blame when it televised the Sojourner’s Religious forum whose barely disguised purpose was to force each of the major candidates to declare their Christian allegiance. And regrettably, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton allowed themselves to be bullied into declaring their religious affiliations and beliefs on national television.
Returning to the religious slurs on Obama, from Kristof:
This is a case where Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain should take the initiative and denounce the fear-mongering about Mr. Obama as hate speech. The wink-wink references to “Barack Hussein Obama” and lies about his going to a madrassa are the religious equivalent of racial slurs, and Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton should denounce them in the strongest terms. This is their chance to show leadership.
And it’s getting worse. See C&L’s post and video on CNN’s reactions to Rep. King’s outrageous smear of Obama.
Related posts:
- Frank Gaffney: Obama is America’s First Muslim President, and Just Like Hitler. Also.
- Frank Gaffney’s Cowardly Backtrack: It Doesn’t Matter if Obama’s a Muslim, Even Though I Just Methodically Detailed Exactly Why He Probably Is
- Does Obama’s 2008 Campaign Have a Lesson for Saving Healthcare Reform?
- Early Morning Swim: Special Rachel Analyzes Obama’s Speech Edition
- Wingnuts React to Obama’s Cairo Speech: He’s Just Like Bush! We’re Doomed!





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Good Morning Scarecrow!
mornin’ Scarecrow, Elliott
I thought there could be only one Antichrist. The things you learn…
Good morning, Scarecrow!
I am sick of this litmus test…it means nothing!
You can’t possibly *know* a person’s true spirituality or what’s in their heart by their proclamations.
Indeed, I am less likely to believe a person who proclaims their religious beliefs on a soapbox.
If anyone were the antichrist, I would think it would be Bush:
Jesus: Love one another
Bush: It’s all about me
Jesus: Peace
Bush: I loooove war
Jesus: Help one another
Bush: Pull yerself up by your bootstraps, Louisiana
Jesus: a rich man will have an easier time getting through the eye of a needle than getting into Heaven
Bush: I give tax breaks to the rich
Scarecrow,
It is time that someone stands up to this religious bigotry.
Excellent post. Another extremist stance by the Rethugs that skews our political balance and discussion. I for one am damn tired of the bigots!
Rolling Stone endorses Obama…
caw caw…
I know we are supposed to have freedom OF religion.
I would be happy with freedom FROM religion in all public matters. Religion, unfortunately is a very divisive matter.
And it also is an organizing “force” which crosses state and national borders. Religions, unlike political parties gather their adherents on a weekly basis for a “pep talk” and this is why politicians are aligning with religions… that’s where the “ears” are.
Apologies for going so o/t:
Ruh-roh – “bush sending cheney to Mideast for talks w/leaders”
http://www.pr-inside.com/white…..477615.htm
“bush sending cheney to Mideast for talks w/leaders”
Is it still possible to buy those build-it-yourself fallout shelters?
Apologies for going so o/t, too
Headline from many Middle Eastern papers this day:
“Middle Easternern leaders on their way to St. Moritz – now”
I figure he’s trying to tie up the oil contracts before they invade Iran. :-(
After seeing God’s message distorted and raped…JESUS WEEPS
Good morning all. How did it get to be so late? Who’s in charge here?
What if cheney came for a visit and nobody was home? *G*
Iirc, that article said he’s going next Sunday. Reckon they’ll be back by then?
Think about it. People are born religion free. Unfortunately it is imposed on them as children before they have critical thinking skills (assuming that as adults they might).
By the time they are adults they are so brainwashed that they refuse to act rationally.
the unruly mob
Remember Virgil Goode’s treatment of Keith Ellison?
How about Boykin’s filthy remarks?
Dennis Prager?
On and on and on.
There is a war against Islam and too many Americans endorse and perpetuate it– they even nurture it!
How I wish that Barack Obama will stand up and take pride in his name & his heritage and toss the bigotry right back in their collective faces. There is a religious test and it is not in keeping with our Constitution.
Actually, since there are numerous religions, freedom of religion is, necessarily, freedom from religion. My right to choose has to free me from the right of others to impose.
Jesus, what a jackass!
DING! DING! DING!
The military does the same to new enlistees but on an accelerated schedule.
Na-uh…..those same reporters report it’s an extended stay.
Oh wait – this just in…..ah, breathing room. They’re leaving “unannounced when necessary.”
Sounds suspicious to me! ;)
Is there no link to Kristof’s column?
Isn’t the phrase “religious bigotry” redundant?
In the U.S., yes.
I think it’s not a matter of country. In the montheism religions there is a fundamental teaching that is the only true religion. That is built-in bigotry and is not a function of place.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03…..ref=slogin
Kristof’s column
Sorry, I thought it was there. I put it in the post, and it’s here. Kristoff link.
Sorry for my rude entry to the thread. G’morning everyone. Coffee is hot, birds are appearing at the feeders, warming up in Minnesota and the freaking Republicans are RACIST BIGOTS! Have a good day.
Digging into the way back machine a good few lines from West Wing (Vinick was the repug candidate):
too bad it’s not up on YouTube.
I don’t think so. I don’t claim to be religious, but I think there’s a difference between one’s spiritual/moral belief system and an attitude that holds its okay to discriminate against and exclude/defame those with views different from our own. The First Amendment essentially says we’re free to have/exercise religious beliefs; but we’re not free to use the state to impose ours on others.
I am glad that i am not religious.
Funny how these Christians get so worked up over endorsements by radical clerics.
That’s a great quote Deb. Thanks.
Here we go.
Before the invasion of Iraq, I was planted out at ‘The Agonist’, and we were able to see and hear the streets of Baghdad via a street cam. Given they’re half a world away or so, we were lucky enough to hear the call for prayers. It was beautiful and people always commented on that. After the invasion for a time, there was nothing – just silence or the sounds of the streets (traffic, etc) and there were numerous comments about missing the call for prayers.
Bingo!! Radical clerics. Our own conventionally dressed, tressed radical clerics.
Scarecrow -
I was involved in a brief discussion on one of yesterday’s threads about the religion issue. One does wonder how many people in this country have been so turned off by the theocons’ view of Christianity that the only time they enter a church will be b/c some relative decided their casket needs to pass thru that portal.
Among the things that scare me most about what is happening in our country is the pronounced increase in bigotry and xenophobia ….neither ever result in positive results.
It isn’t really about religion—it’s about fear of the “other” and a huge part of the electorate that is cowed into submitting to the will of “religious” figures who tell them they are only safe if they submit to Jesus or Allah or YHWH . . . That is not what religion should be about but when religion crosses the line into fundamentalism and the authoritarian leaders who like power ascend into positions of power within the religions, that’s what happens.
closest i ever came to a cleric was in … gasp … D&D!
Bigotry is the reason I left organized religion to the fearful.
It can’t be denied that the U.S. is the most bigoted country toward any religion other than Christianity. It also can’t be denied that the many ME countries are the most bigoted toward any religion other than Islam.
You’re mixing up law and religion. I was speaking of religion alone. The three monotheistic relgions teach that they are the only true religion (Jews are the “chosen” people, Christ came down to save all Christians [anyone can be one by conversion but you aren’t saved unless you are Christian], and God revealed to Mohammad the last true word). That frame places each person of those religions in a superior position to anyone who is not a member of that particular religion. That’s why I said “religious bigotry” is redundant.
You add secular laws that try to prevent people from acting on their built-in bigotry. But that is a different story.
You would think that we would be beyond these wretched Christian proclamations drawn from the candidates, and now it’s mandatory. But when, and I quote from the post, “key media elements have been willing accomplices in an effort to impose a relatively narrow religious test on our politics,” what is to be done to push back against this?
Of course we write our letters, make our calls, and talk the issue among friends and acquaintances. But beyond that, what can we do to advance this discussion and reverse this trend?
I was raised in the Christian tradition. The most lasting vestige of that is the Sermon on the Mount (the Beatitudes). To wit:
That said, where is the church in all of this? In the day, the church was a major player in all things justice. Where are the Catholic bishops? Where is today’s equivalent of Robert McAfee Brown? Where are those who face forward rather than to the right? Just askin’. (sigh)
You are always the sane voice in regard to religion.
Does the hierarchal nature of religion play into its divisive use?
Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundementalists are two sides of the same coin.
Cut out the “faith based initiatives” and the tax exempt status of places of worship.
Not to mention McCain’s meeting up with Rod Parsley as well. Mr. Parsley himself on Religion and Ethics Newsweekly.
Edit suggested for your consideration. *g*
Rev,
Nobody at the Lake comes closer to having their finger on the pulse of this religion thing *g*….what’s your take on where religious fundamentalism is going in this country in the near term (say 5-10 years)?
The crazy thing in american fundamentalism is that the biggest fundy churches tend not to be part of a larger denomination, they are independent which kind of says it isn’t hierarchical. BUT when the charismatic pastor places himself (and it’s almost always HIMself) in the role of great leader and guru the system has a hard time doing anything without him.
The worst system for hierarchy is the Catholic church. The parish priests often tend to be reasonable and accepting kinds of guys but the higher they go, the more they toe the party line and the more “exclusive” they get. John the 23rd was the great exception.
Authoritarian, yes, always in fundamental, only we are right orgs. Hierarchical, sometimes.
The trouble with these silly religious “sayings” is that they need not be “religious”. It is simply “right” to treated humans with respect and dignity and caring. It is simply right to be kind, generous and work to alleviate the suffering of people. This has nothing to do with religion, being blessed or holy.
Atheists can act morally without any religious teachings because religion is simply a MAN made narrative. It plays on the fears of humans and their fear of death.
So these fundy churches are truly radical sects.
I’ve been told a dozen times the differences between catholics and christians but it still doesn’t sink in.
thanks, I meant to include that group.
Europe had almost solved their religion problem, but fundamentalism is shaking things up again.
Religion will probably be the cause of the next war. Or the spark that sets it off.
Actually, I think Peterr would be a better resource for this at the Lake, but the best analysis done anywhere online is at Talk2Action. This issue is their raison d’etre.
Hard to know where they will go. If we get hit by another terrorist attack—which is pretty likely at some time, then the armageddon cultists will be in their glory and the fear mongers will again beat the drums and the sheep will scurry back to their fundy churches in droves. Fear is a very potent thing and they use it well.
We have not had a leader in recent memory who talks about fear like FDR did. Until we do, I tend to think the cycle will repeat itself. I don’t think the fundies are going to go away any time soon. There is way too much money and media behind their empires.
drive by-had to comment-
june ’03 the last time i set foot in my small town (usually 62 people) methodist church.
there had been politics creeping into the services…started out with ’support of the troops’ stuff, cuz there were a few from the congregation in iraq, then turned into politics, from members and the pastor… which i objected to, to the pastor.(whom i liked, i liked all of them, but that’s not the point)
members could get up and share things of interest to them, and they did……
what did it, was when the organist got up and read a thing about a senator who used his two minutes of time in session to talk about god and pray……a republican……she thought this was just the ’bestest’ thing evah!
and people clapped…….she said it was a sign that america was going in the right direction, finally.
i was appalled.
there was a joke that every time i heard something like this, i popped a tictac i my mouth to keep from saying anything…….jokes were going around for people to buy stock in tictacs, cuz they could hear my container rattling…….
i said that i much preferred a separation of church and state and that stuff had no place in a church service.
and it kept getting worse.
so, i quit going……..
all this time later, people still call for me to come back to the church, that there is a new pastor, that i would like him, etc……but i just can’t. they couldn’t see the hypocrisy of what they were doing, and that is why i won’t go back.
Thanks. LOL! I needed that.
digg mates, digg this post
ergo, no more tax exemptions.
period.
Catholics are Christians. So are Protestants. Catholicism (meaning universalism) was the outgrowth an consolidation of the earlist churches. Historically, the Bishop of Rome came to be recognized as head of the Universal Church. He and his counsels interpreted and codified the theology of the religion. The Pope (Bishop of Rome) is believed to receive guidance from God.
Protestants, following Martin Luther, rebelled against the hierarchy and belief that the Pope and priests had to interpret between God and people. They believe people themselves can interpret. Hundreds of Protestant churches arose, differing on various theological points.
Le’s see…Pilgrims ran from the Church of England to avoid religious persecution (BIGOTRY) They has run from the Catholics protestabt reformation.
They did the scarlet letter thingie
So 200 years later and fed up the Progressive Founding Fathers took Religious bigotry out of Constitutional Republic in summe under God? Help me out. Have we forgotten how we got to Gemocracy? Monte Python where are ye? Full circle religious jerk.
I’ve told Christians who chastise me for leaving organized religion that, if they truly believed, they would love me for me just the way I am…just as Jesus would have. The response is always, “Oh, we love you, but [insert anything here].” It’s the “but” part that Jesus never went on to say after, “I love you.”
There are Christian fundamentalists and Catholic fundamentalists and liberal Christians and liberal Catholics. One cannot put them in the same category.
Fundamentalists of ANY kind are problematic.
This article appeared today in the largest local paper (SE NC):
“Baptists join fight on global warming”
http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_8516769
Disclosure: I was reared Southern Baptist which had a lot to do with my current attitude toward formalized religion. It would be nice to see them finally take something that amounts to a progressive stance on such an important issue.
RevDeb -
Thanks for the linky; bookmarked for future reading.
And fundamentalists who share progressive views and those who don’t. Nes pas? It is one of pastordan’s reminders.
I’d love to see a tree diagram of all these sects sometime. I’ve search the web before but never found one.
Why be afraid of terra? It’s like being afraid of a traffic accident. You live your life and you act prudently.
Terra is a tactic to intimidate people. It is used by people with some “agenda”.
If Islamists have an anti USA agenda, we need to address that. Is there an inevitable war since there is an irreconcilable difference? What DO the Islamists want from the USA that they think terra will accomplish?
Morning all :)
Quick OT, but apparently some MI credit unions are having tech difficulties…Their ATM/Debit/Credits stopped working on Sat. The company who holds/issues the cards is having MAJOR software probs…
full disclosure- I’m one of them whose card stopped working…
I have noticed that the fundamentalists act like they are unified. They act like, if we could just get religion restored to it’s rightful place with prayer is school, etc., everything would be alright. They never seem to notice that the prayer would be some group’s specific fundamentalist prayer. The only thing that saves their kids from having to listen to a prayer they don’t believe is the separation church and state. You just can’t make them get it.
It’s more like a root system than a tree!
Ah, exactly. There are so many strains/themes/metaphors in the Bible and other religious texts that’s it’s possible to come out anywhere on the political spectrum and still claim to be religiously based.
oops ‘ATM/Debit/Credits’ is supposed to have ‘cards’ after it….more coffee..
religious texts are written BY MEN they are not the “word of god”.
Who cares what’s in these texts?
They are no more valid than any other fiction.
Well, here are the seven deadly sins and their combinations
I tend to lump them all together. Maybe more like a mandelbrot set of something.
I totally agree. The tenets of Christianity are solidly rooted in humanity. Which is why I’ve dragged some of it along with me, even in my most cynical and unbelieving times. Lately, there’s been a boatload of that. David’s cancer and America’s cancer (BushCo) being chief architects of my despair. Long ago, a nun (!) taught me this agnostic’s prayer: Dear God (if there is a God), bless my soul (if I have a soul). How’s THAT for cynical?!
Thanks for the emphasis on MEN. In addition to intolerance, religion is misogynist.
It still wouldn’t be too clear. It would probably look something like the family tree of European royalty. They split over a thousand minute “how many angels can stand on the head of a pin” type arguments; i.e.; whether there should be music in church; whether women should cut their hair, to mention a couple of the sillier ones.
vine?
Actually some of the pilgrims fleeing religious persecution weren’t very friendly to others who didn’t believe as they did. In the front of the MA statehouse there is a statue of Mary Dyer who was hung for being a Quaker.
Any religion that declares itself the “one and only and anyone who isn’t a member is evil” is not the kind of religion that I want any part of. Sadly, there are too many who fit into that category.
And most wars over time have had much to do with religion because religion and the state were too closely tied together.
As long as we look at “the other” as enemy, enmity and wars will continue. If we aren’t content with ourselves and what we have and either fear or envy the other, we will find someone to fill the role of enemy. The Buddhist way of non-attachment has a lot to commend and if really practiced shows a way for peace, both inner and outer. Sadly, too much money and power is the wind behind the sails of war so it ain’t going away any time soon.
Much as I would like to point my finger in just one direction and shout: “Shiite Republicans”, I fear all too often we are all primitive “Shiite Humans”.
I’m a great fundamentalist believer in Pogo, myself.
no, it’s evangelicals who share some progressive views. Fundamentalists and evangelicals are 2 different things. There are evangelicals who are fundamentalists and some who are not.
Why don’t you try to go door to door and explain that viewpoint. It’s about a 10,000 year old argument. Some people believe in apriori reasoning. Better minds than yours and mine have asked, what is the origin and nature of ideas? Where do they come from in the first place?
Fundamentalist/absolutist are a virus to be exposed to the “sun’s light” and evaporated! The constitution and adherence to it is the disinfectant designed to irradiate this viruses, with reason! If the “disinfectant” is compromised, and viruses grow unchecked they develop into cancer!
idk, i think it would be helpful, maybe just skip over the micro-splits.
Okay, so what distinguishes a “fundamentalist”?
No kidding! *g*
maybe Shiite is to Methodist as Sunny is to…
Just a note – Judaism does not think of itself as the only true religion – and the “chosenness” is chosen to serve God. That is all.
These guys have all sorts of charts along those lines. I am not sure they have what you are looking for on a single chart, however.
I’ll defer to RevDeb for sure, but my seat-of-pants shot at this:
Fundamentalists rigidly adhere to literal interpretation of holy writs. No wiggle room. Tops down. Strict parent in extremis (strict parent being the Holy, and then the Holy’s ministers on earth).
Evangelicals embrace the spirit of holy writs, want to share it more broadly than Sunday worship services, and have some milk of human kindness in their beings.
Or something like that.
Thanks for that. Hadn’t heard it before. Even so, being chosen to serve God inherently contains specialness, because presumably it means that others cannot serve God.
excellent, thx!
I always liked this
unix timeline
A. A fundamentalist is one who interprets their texts as literal and the ONLY path. It’s the same for Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Anyone who follows anything else is either damned or evil or something.
B. An evangelical wants to share their path with others—bring them the “good news” share their enthusiasm with the hope of bringing others into the fold. We around here can be evangelical in regard to blogging—we want to teach others and show them the “light.” But we don’t necessarily believe it’s the ONLY way to “salvation.”
One can be both A and B but one can also be B without the extremism of A.
not really – one can serve and be an example to others to serve too.
and also with A- not all believers of the 3 “book” religions are fundamentalists, in fact it tends to be a small proportion of them.
I wonder about being both A and B. I see your point. But there is some measure of joyfulness in evangelicals that is totally absent in fundamentalists, or so I believe. How say you?
It is the “absolutist mentality” contained within fundamentalism that is the problem. Fundamentalist who abdicate “all reason in favor of doctrine,” and fail to accept differences and instead are intolerant of others are old fashioned bigots mired in ignorance and manipulated just like feudal peasant and sheep!
The Repubs win-at-all-costs political strategy uses religion as they use the terrorist fear card & everything else, as a cudgel to bludgeon us into accepting what otherwise would be completely unacceptable.
The ideals of belief in a higher power & need for community horribly perverted, for base political gain. Feh.
I’m sure RevDeb knows better, but I think of fundamentalism as associated with literal interpretation of the Bible. Even though much of the Bible can’t be understood literally, fundamentalists tend to believe that it can. Non fundamentalists might think that strictures against eating pork were tribal taboos based on observation before they knew about trychanosis. Fundamentalists would simply believe literally that God doesn’t want us to eat port and it would be a sin to do so. It, of course, gets into much more bizarre interpretations than that.
In my view, the fundamentalists do tend to start hedging, and saying that’s not what it really means, when you asking them about new testiment admonitions against praying in public and getting involved in politics.
Good question. There seems to be. Watch Jesus Camp some time. The really odd thing about that movie is that while it may creep most of us out, the people in it thought it was a good presentation of who they are.
If you do not limit to the three monotheistic religions, the headline works…Let’s not limit the argument…
Rev Deb @ 54
This is the point I had to address in urban development when trying to get mega churches involved in rebuilding disenfranchised communities. There is a corollary between $$ spent on media and lobbying (especially regarding anti-abortion)versus the failure to reach out and rebuild the walls of a city through genuine acts of charity which build hope and sustainability. The percentage of dollars spent on media and lobbying are pale in comparison to the needs of people.
Example:
One church threw $$ towards anti abortion lobbying as well as built the largest cChristain media network in the region of the country I worked in.
Another church, trained members to buy homes in urban neighborhoods and open their homes to unwed mothers providing room, board,education,job training, job counseling, parenting education, financial planning training, lamaze classes, birthing assistance,prenatal care guidance with an OBGYN,housing search, setting up housing and a lifetime of friendship to Mom and child. When child became school-aged the family offered tutoring and stay-in-school encouragements. Cradle-to-grave care and sustainability to mother and child. True “life-based” ministry.
Care was given with no questions asked. No demands for belief because of care given. Many times the Moms would ask, “Why did you care for me?”
Members at this church were trained to simply state,”Because I’m called to give my time, talents and resources to others.” If the conversation continued, members would only then share the foundation of their beliefs and would express if there was ever an interest in attending church they would be willing to assist.
The latter church had a gift of addressing systemic concerns in at-risk communities…and built communities of hope…
Rare? Yes. Real? Yes.
Throwing the money changers out of the temple would come to mind with the former…
I don’t understand. How is it that people not chosen by God can serve God? If they could do the latter, why did God not choose them for that role?
I have a sense that fundamentalist Christians are rooted primarily in Old Testament theology. A God of wrath and fury, punishment and demands. The appearance of Christ tempered that with strong messages and modeling about justice, peace, respect — the whole “as you do to these . . . so you do to me” model. Fundamentalists seem to gloss over that even as they call themselves Christians. Cognitive dissonance, maybe. I dunno.
scarecrow and others-i forgot to add the main point on my 55–
the people doing it thought they were simply being ’patriotic’
that is the part that i think most people miss on this, that it isn’t just their religious beliefs, they think they are being patriotic by holding these views.
when i read your post, that is what it triggered, that being politically correct using religion is being ’toted out’ as patriotism…….that is the trend that started it that i felt was so ugly that made me walk out of the church, and it has not gotten better, as your post suggests.
off to run around with a friend, i’ve been cooped up with the flu, so, will feel good to get out……..
take care
In the context of U.S., monotheistic religions dominate.
WRT abortion, you might replay this morning’s democracynow.org, which delves into the topic of the link between religion & abortion.
These religious discussions surface again and again at the lake.
There are many people who “accept” religion and see the good stuff in it, go blind to the bad, and try to work within in it as if all the bad stuff is not there. That’s a bummer because most religions are fatally flawed, misogynistic and it’s really trying to get a busted machine to perform as it should.
It’s far better IMO to move past religion and work in political and social organizations with rational solutions and leave heaven out of it, blessings and so forth.
are the fundamentalists tastier to the lions?
RevDev,
While you’re educating us, could you please tell me what “born again” means? Including all its connotations. Thanks.
Sing it, Barbara! I understand. Exactly.
The systemic cancer that John Dean noted back in the Nixon day is alive and well. And as long as media make beaucoup bucks airing televangelist programs the corruption will continue on both secular and religious rails.
I’m mindful of Jesus’ message about the widow who prayed with head bowed in the shadows while the “man of God” brayed in the front of the church.
As long as we have a mogul culture where greed is good–see 60 Minutes last night–then the current track will keep rollin’ on.
Hey, wait a minute….hmmmm. Mogul. That’s one of them there mooslim words, isn’t it? That would mean Carl Icahn’s a mooslim. And Rupert. And McAuliffe. And….. /s
Prairie Today: W = Waterboarder
LOL.
If we don’t stop this now we will legitimize it for future elections. And that truly would be a step backwards.
not all christian churches have taught this (and i do agree it is bigotry).
Saved from what?
I think that’s true. They are much more likely to cite something like “an eye for an eye,” without mentioning that the New Testiment refutes that. Lets face it. Fundamentalism is much more inclined to be related to ignorance, superstition, and fear.
well yes it is far better to move past it, but how can you if it blocks the road?
I reject and denounce the reprehensible comments of Representative Steve King.
Sing it, children.
Religion centered on the after life is completely bogus. There is no proof of one so why does one live ones life to get into heaven and avoid hell?
Laughing! Thanks.
Disagree with the theological premise of that. The god of the Hebrew Scriptures is really many interpretations of the holy as there were several authors each with their own understanding of what God was. The god(s) of the Hebrew Bible evolved and changed and made mistakes and tried to correct them. Yes, there was a lot of blood and gore and things which we would find repugnant. The purpose of the scripture was to use story to teach lessons, to try to rein in a society with few boundaries and set some kind of path to holiness. It was also about tribalism and organizing a people. The New Testament was a continuation of that using the story telling of one great prophet as its focus.
For way too long, the Christians have tried to paint the god of the HS as vengeful and nasty in order to play up their god. But what kind of god would have “his” best prophet tortured and killed for all to see? The resurrection was a way of undoing that just like staying the hand of Abraham over his son Isaac. It’s all about telling a story to inspire people. Sadly, too many people have been inspired to do the violent and evil thing and saying the Bible told them to do it. URGH.
Not that I’m a believer, I’m not, but I do teach the stories and try to sort them out for folks.
Tight here on earth:
Disappointing oil exploration results in the Gulf of Mexico are upsetting the hopes of US oil majors for big new findings in an area free from interference by foreign, state-owned oil companies.
Wood MacKenzie, the energy consultancy, said in a new report that findings in the Gulf in 2007 were the lowest of the past decade. With a total of 553m barrels of oil equivalent, these new reserves were less than half of what was found in 2006.
Exactly the point I was trying to make when I was able to momentarily stick my head up out of the primordial (sic) ooz.
I think the discussions are really about separation of church and state, not whether there is a cause and purpose for existence. Hopefully, most of us can agree on teh first part.
Listened earlier.
Have been working on a book addressing the history…
But when the churches interfere with the operation of the state, they need to be slapped down and sanctioned.
from death – from sin – from a future of unending bliss with the divine -…..
there’s lots of ways people understand this, but i think it mostly comes down to being “saved” from suffering for our own “sin” – there’s lots of ways we humans have to deal with our own weaknesses, evil deeds, evil desires and general complicity with whatever we consider to be evil: denial, projection, repression and for many a religious teaching that some authority figure will “pardon” us and make us whole and good.
i really don’t object so much if it provides comfort to the suffering, but too often it causes harm.
I reject and denounce religion!
Sister Sunshine, I am so with you on this. If ever there was a candidate for the lion’s den, this guy is the one. Succulent Republican morsel, marinated in hubris and ignorance.
Late to the party, they pulled this shit on the Jewish woman who became mayor of Athens, whispers from the pulpit.
Seems to be the right place for Dawkins on OT God:
point taken, thanks for making it.
amen.
I like the sound of that. Buddhism is nice when you strip away the craploa they have piled on it.
I think it only provides comfort in-so-far as the comforted individual has been indoctrinated into that belief system.
Veryvery Late to the conversation as I have been chasing down organic eggs this morning. I grew up in Ireland, a catholic country, and have seen bigotry, hypocrisy and hate first hand. I have also seen a church keeping a country at bay by the use of fear……” you will burn in the fires of hell” and all that crap. The rovians have learned well.
There is a christian teaching about Adam and Eve eating the apple against the will of God which forever taints humanity—original sin. It is not a biblical construct but was elevated into doctrine by Augustine of Hippo. Presumably the ritual of baptism washes off the stain of sin and brings a child or person into a state of grace with God. Some traditions baptize newborns, others adults who freely choose it.
To be born again is to have a transforming experience that turns one away from sin—presumably. In many fundamentalist churches you aren’t really one of them unless and until you have had that transformational experience that brings you to Jesus.
I agree!
Jihadist are Muslim group that want to do us great harm…kneel or die.
The slur is implied with the Madrassa and the Hssein name. Most folks as seen in this thred have not made distictions accurately.
1.5 billion Muslims are probably not active Jihadist…but MSM can lump or bundle them all into one big bad apple box.
Painting the presidential candidate Obama like that or using Osama frightens a whole lot of people. It gets back down to Frank Zappa if there are more stupid people (stupidity) then the ignorant people will cause the rational people big pain, And that folks is what it’s about punishment…for not being faithful!
MSM has already painted all Muslims with the Jihadist brush (serious shit).
Any symbolism like beards. This is a real problem.
How’d Mitt Romney make out?
Dawkins has his own agenda to sell. This helps him sell it.
and thank you Scarecrow!
The whole notion of being a “secret” Muslim shows that people aren’t thinking of it as a religion, but as a cipher for terrorism. This is a sad fact of life in the United States, and perhaps one of the few bad things to result from the separation of church and state, one byproduct of which is the unfortunate idea that one shouldn’t teach about religion in public schools. Instead they only hear about Islam on the news and accept that puerile framing.
Blue Texan is upstairs with commentary about the Barbeque loving Scott Pelley’s treatment of McCain.
Thanks everyone for a mostly tolerant and enlightening session. Amen.
Thanks for your explanation.
I’m aware of original sin, having been raised RC. (The pope just abolished it, you may be aware. LOL)
You answered part of my Q about born again. What I don’t understand is must it occur as an adult, meaning after the age when humans are rational & can decisions for themselves? And is there a ceremony? And, like the traditional baptism, you can relapse. Is there a way that born-agains are kept in the ring or excluded depending on whether they adhere to their pledge?
Do you mean that Dawkins’s agenda is science, and this helps sell science?
people look for meaning and purpose in their lives in all kinds of ways… and i don’t think that is something that can be pursued in an entirely rationally and empirically. the scientific method isn’t the answer to all life’s questions.
for a long time i rejected all forms of religion – because i had been taught the ugly fundamentalist kind. but i can see now that there may be a baby in that dirty bath water.
heh, Jihadist from to Zappa, cool!
well RevDeb will answer for herself…
but, imo, he’s not selling science with statements like the one you quoted.
Thanks for allowing us un-indoctrinated folks :)
my experience with buddism is pretty much limited to Thich Naht Hanh – who a greatly admire.
I’m not trying to denigrate your beliefs. It just seems to me that to be comforted by a religion that you must have been raise with that sort of belief system.
idk, i just really don’t understand religion.
Very well put.
Think selling fear for profit
mine is pretty much limited to dictionary definitions.
I do dig the tao of pooh tho.
Trained as a sculptor, I thnk so P’u is a great metaphor.
Fear…punishment…shame…the incredible reward of eternal life (never dying) can be dispensated to the faithful at no cost.
Obedience to God who’s ordained minister or cleric will give you the brand you want…if you don’t like this preacher…go to another one…bounce around the ecumencal community…special groups for your special needs…or just go sit anonomously next to someome…pick a service 9-10-11 7PM never one size fits all…a nation of sheep as Philip Wylie said…part of the flock led by…George Bush and replaced by someone who has made public confession…do religion is politics…pass the plate and the pledge envelopes.
“Fear for profit” and control.
A friend was once complimented for his good “Christian” like nature and invited to join a local congregation.
His response: Are you out of your mind?! Take a 10% cut in pay and give up my Sundays?!
As a sculptor/artist, you might get an insight into the religeous impulse by thinking about the Greek concept of the muse. I know you’ve experienced inspiration, where the work seems to create itself, and you later think, “Did I do that.” If you’re like me, you keep seeking that phenomenon. Where do the ideas actually come from? We didn’t create them. Is there some frame of mind or ritual that will encourage it? I wonder if it could be induced in my daily life to deal with other situations? I think these are some of the strong bases of religion which an artist can understand. They called it, “praying for the muse.”
Dawkins agenda is promoting rational thought.
His vehicle is publishing books.
All of it depends on the church that the “believer” belongs to. In some teens have their born again experience acknowledged in others only adults. Altar calls are enough for some, actual baptism in rivers or pools for others. There are probably as many ways of doing it as there are churches. And is someone “saved” forever? I guess it’s a matter for them and their conscience. I wouldn’t know. Do people relapse? Sure. George W., but is he self-aware to know it? Doubt it.
The ones we know about that have been kicked out have been the high profile pastors who have been shown for the hypocrites they are. That is probably the tip of the iceberg.
If you are selling science, you don’t need to bash religion to do it.
There are a lot of folks who have been greatly wounded by religion and are living in a society that won’t acknowledge it. That’s probably the audience Dawkins plays to/writes for. It gives them a vocabulary with which to defend themselves or even go on the offensive.
That would be my guess.
In creating art I experience a very distinct mental shift. The more I practice creating art the easier I can make that mental shift. I am not sure how that relates to your argument. It is simply my experience.
Me, too, dmac…but not just that–I personally found spirituality out in nature rather than a building with four walls that people dictated how I should think and feel about God, et al.
I find that offensive.
Yes, in many cases it is, but please don’t generalize that much. For may people religion brings true solace and comfort. People find it for many reasons and yes, rational thinking people can also be religious. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great pastor and preacher as well as a civil rights leader. Many of the great changes and organizations in our society have been started or supported by religious leaders including the ACLU.
ahh.. that is exactly it. i don’t understand religion, i don’t understand human nature, i don’t understand the world, i don’t understand my place in the world, i don’t understand life, i don’t understand how or why we give meaning to our lives.
there’s lots of questions that science just can’t address – like what is the meaning of our life? imo, religion at it’s very best is an attempt to consider that kind of question.
all the bullshit about being saved, being chosen, having god (whatever that is) on our side….. all of that has, imo, NOTHING to do with religion or spirituality at it best.
and tw3k – no way are you denigrating my beliefs. i don’t believe in a personal god – although i don’t reject the concept of the divine or transcendent. lol, my dogma can probably be summed up in the following creed:
suffering sucks.
love is good.
While it is true that there are a lot of questions that science can’t address I do that think most questions can be informed through science.
From what I’ve seen of religion it appears ill-equipped to answer contemporary questions.
Anyways, kinda distracted right now, but I’d love to sit up all night, drink coffee and talk about the subject with you. l8rs
Second that!
With my work in urban development, I worked with all walks of life. Those with a belief system and those without. Those not sure what to believe and those indifferent to faith systems. On all sides of humanity I have encountered bigotry against faith, against lack of faith, against no faith, against indifference. Not one view is centered on positive sum.
It was the foundation of this country that each individual was able to pursue life, liberty and happiness in an environment of fair and due process.
Free to be as long as your “to be” did not violate another citizen’s rights.
We have free speech, which allows for all the views expressed in this thread.
We have freedom of religion. Again, allowing for the views expressed in this thread.
Yet, there remains a cultural divide… Which is reflected in this thread.
We all have the freedom “to be” through the Constitution.
A Constitution in the process of crumbling…
Let’s focus, no matter where one falls on one’s spectrum of life, on the issues that will rebuild our nation so that we might still be able to speak freely and decide our position issues that will preserve ad restore foundation freedom.
If the campaign continues down a path of cultural divide based on religious attack, we all lose…We as an electorate can make a difference on this concern.
The one observation in my work…Everyone I worked with, faith systems or not, was looking or working for hope, dignity and security…common ground…the positive sum…
No, it is nor “crumbling, it is being torn apart by a bunch of criminals that the Dems don’t have the balls to take on. As for religious bigotry. I don’t care whether you’re a muslim, pagon, christian, mormon or hindu, if you base your world view on supernatural events influencing the reality based universe in the past OR the presant you are superstitius. Period. End of story. You have CHOSEN to make a carefully thought out break with reality. So to me religowackjobs fighting over who has the TRUE religion is kinda like watchin crabs in a barrel. Fun, but NOBODY in that THAR barrel is gonna come out on top and they’re ALL goin in da pot!
later tw3k.
passing shot – i just don’t see that science and spirituality have to be in conflict or compartmentalized… and this from someone who was trained in science (and still loves it) and has utterly rejected the religious “values” of her past.
An excellent post all around. I just wanted to add one prediction regarding the right-wing/mainstream media:
In time for the 2012 elections, the generally accepted narrative will be that Romney went out to declare his religious views publicly because of terribly unfair howling and hounding from the atheistic libruls. Mark my words.
Thanks for this post, Scarecrow. This trend has been bothering me for some time now. Is the press complicit? Yes!
The thought that “God is on my side” completely misses the point of what it’s all about, IMHO.
We just recently had a community meeting with our homeless outreach program. One man wanted to help this one particular homeless person (whom every one knew) but he wanted to help her his way, although everyone else knew the woman had deep emotional issues that prevented her from accepting help in HIS way. He just wouldn’t let up, because he was right, you know.
It’s not about forcing people to do things one way, FGS. Acceptance and tolerance, not control.
I so wanted Hillary Clinton to say something like the fictional senator on West Wing in response to Scott Pelley’s question. What a golden opportunity to elevate the level of political discourse. Likewise I wanted Barack Obama to talk about the importance of trying to understand and appreciate other cultures when Drudge circulated that photo of Obama in native dress.
It does get worse. The media take it a step further and try to goad candidates into a conflict with each other on religious grounds. Hillary Clinton in an interview was asked multiple times in a row about the Obama/Muslim thing, and after repeatedly answering that this attack on Obama was false and a slur, she finally added in frustration “as far as I know”. Bob Herbert, whose work I usually admire, then misrepresented her statement. See Media Matters’ take on this:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803090001
Scarecrow -
I’m not a full-fledged theologian, but I DO have degrees in Religious Studies and Biology.
This was a great post!
Religion in and of itself is fascinating stuff, getting into the belief systems of others and their myths/stories.
I don’t care for the Religous Right pushing their views in the political sphere. But, is that really so different than the identity politics Hillary (the first female to be taken seriously for president) and Barack (the first black to be taken seriously for president) are using?
Seriously, are we Democrats really going to accept identity politics on our side and berate Republicans for using it on their side?
Identity can lead the voter down some stupid alleyways when they try to figure out candidates. For example, Bush and Obama are both men who have used cocaine, while Hillary is a woman who (presumably) hasn’t. Does that mean Bush and Obama are the same politically? Does it mean Obama is more like Bush than Hillary is like Bush? Silliness. Sheer silliness.
To me the more worrisome thing is the similarity of Hillary and Barack to all the politicians who have used smears, innuendo, lies, and trickery to get elected and refused to talk about their own political background, policies and actual plans for if/when they do become president. I’ve heard it said recently that there’s hardly a difference between Hillary and Barack on policy. Is that true? From earlier in the primary I can hardly believe it. Wasn’t Hillary a “modern Progressive”? Wasn’t Obama praising Reagan? Do these candidates actually stand for anything specific?
Sure, you can look at their voting records to discover their “true” identity. But, don’t forget politicians have been known to construct a resume — phony as the paper it’s not written on.
So, if you want identity politics the first thing you truly need to do is suss out their true identity. Was Bush really a Christian? Was he really off the drugs and alcohol? Was he really a “compassionate conservative”? It doesn’t seem likely and yet they sold that image of him and people liked it. Are being sold anything less this time around?
Thanks for the reply selise. I think it is truly dialectic.