Christian Law and Politics [Archive]

joft

12 Jun 2006, 06:12 PM

if you think we're fucked now, just wait

Generation Joshua (http://www.generationjoshua.org/dnn/Default.aspx?tabid=244) is a program for Christian homeschooled kids.

Generation Joshua will organize homeschool teens to work with their pastors to mount the largest church-based voter registration drive in modern history
...
Generation Joshua is designed for Christian youth between the ages of 11 and 19 who want to become a force in the civic and political arenas. Our goal is to ignite a vision in young people to help America return to her Judeo-Christian foundations.

they have scholarships, political action teams, and all sorts of stuff to help these kids who are completely out of touch with reality outside their extremely sheltered (usually) fundamentalist Christian homes. stuff that looks good on resumes and helps ensure their admission to Harvard Law School, or if they're too stupid to pull that off, they can always just go to one of their very own colleges like Patrick Henry College (http://www.phc.edu/) - founded by the same people.

Patrick Henry College has from its inception taken seriously its mission to prepare Christian men and women to lead the nation and shape the culture with timeless biblical values
there's also Regent University (http://www.regent.edu/) (founded by Pat Robertson)

As America's premier graduate school dedicated to combining quality education with biblical teachings, Regent continues to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world.
and once they graduate with their degree in political science or law, if they're too stupid or crazy to get elected (note: look who we elected president), they can just join the American Center for Law and Justice (http://aclj.org/) and be one more clone in the army of Christian lawyers who swarm every federal or local case in an epic struggle to force Christian morality on everyone in the country via the law/government, and to guarantee we have as little freedoms as possible (except for religious freedoms) by fighting against everything the ACLU tries to do.

the president of the ACLJ (which was also founded by Pat Robertson) is this guy named Jay Sekulow, i hear his radio show on my mom's radio (which she always has tuned to the local christian radio station). he's as hyper, obnoxious, and impervious to reason, as you'd imagine he would have to be (or if you wouldn't, just take my word for it that it's pretty bad). He also happens to be filthy rich (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1130499506270)

there is another side to Jay Sekulow, one that, until now, has been obscured from the public. It is the Jay Sekulow who, through the ACLJ and a string of interconnected nonprofit and for-profit entities, has built a financial empire that generates millions of dollars a year and supports a lavish lifestyle -- complete with multiple homes, chauffeur-driven cars, and a private jet that he once used to ferry Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
but that's beside the point; seriously, i hesitate to mention it. at any rate, if you ever suddenly have the compulsion to be driven to madness, listen to his radio show some time. it's hard to tell whether or not he's actually that one-track minded himself, or he's just keeping it stupid for the sake of his listeners. most of the callers have accents almost as unintelligible as their questions, it's funny; "Isn't the ALCU like a terrorist group in America?" *long pause* "Well I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but..."

he's basically a 3 trick pony. whenever he talks about the ALCU or any civil rights or secular group bringing some law suit against some religious thing, he says that they're "complaining again, this time about ___" - always belittling their cause to the status of complaining. he then cites some example of some other more outrageous case that they did (with the ACLU it's always that they defended the rights of sex offenders, this happens about 3-4 times every show which is 30min long). and the last thing is just the general Christian shtick about our founding fathers and how our country is supposed to be based on religious principles.

i didn't mean to go from "raising awareness" to a rant about this one dumbass, but it's a good example of how it's absolutely impossible to reason with these people. they are completely closed to dialogue- just try to call his show and see if you can get on to express an opposing argument. we've had the vocal and active christian conservatives, now here comes the conservative christians, the calvary cavalry (i couldn't resist) (i could have... but i'm annoyed and feel like annoying you too)

cliffs:
-liberal/secular people (like me) are screwed
-fuck this shit

sbw

12 Jun 2006, 06:19 PM

I'm enjoying this new cliffnotes trend.

cliffs: :joft:

Scott

Eileen

12 Jun 2006, 06:41 PM

yeah, i heard about this stuff on NPR.

run for the fucking hills.

Lee

12 Jun 2006, 06:44 PM

joft

12 Jun 2006, 06:49 PM

i might also note that having been a christian homeschooler i can testify to our near complete detachment from reality. even though i was a rebellious christian, intp, with the internet, and had been goatse'd and was aware of stuff, i was (and to some extent am) still pretty sheltered and clueless

in many case we're literally talking about kids whose mommies accompany them to job and school interviews, drive them around, tie their shoes (ok jk), etc. except they'll be running the country in the future.

no their success isn't guaranteed, but the vast majority of voters are still Christians. and in law they just have to keep interpreting the same way they interpret the bible, as literally and historically as possible (as far removed from the present reality as possible)

kendoiwan

12 Jun 2006, 06:56 PM

Luckily, the fact that these organisations exist, does not mean that they will inevitably achieve their goals; neither does success now indicate a slippery slope.

This kind of stuff does worry me though. Basically, because they cannot force people to act how they'd prefer, they instead try to influence the law to do it for them. This is convenient, because even many Christians would not support such oppression if they were expected to oppress their victims personally. However, through the intermediary of law, forcing their own standards on abstract others who they will not personally deal with, that is far more palatable.

Of course, it is hard to argue with someone who honestly believes they are on a mission from God.

I love (it's thoroughly entertaining) and Hate (the shit is annoying when you're subject to it) the way no matter what happens to dispute their unwavering faith they find a way to ignore or minimize it...
For example: say their pastor gets shot in a drive by (I made it up dammmit)
them: well the lord works in mysterious ways and God is Good, so if pastor got killed it must be for the greater good...:wtf:

joft

12 Jun 2006, 07:08 PM

if God answers your prayer you should be thankful and take it as more proof upon which to base your belief instead of faith. if God doesn't answer your prayer it's either not the right time and you should keep waiting, or you didn't have enough faith, or it wasn't God's will, but you should still be thankful

God wants you to be successful so every time you have a good break be thankful. and every time things are going wrong you should be thankful too because God is trying/testing you and you'll grow stronger through it

ok i'm tired of picking on christians it's getting boring. sure they want to have everything both ways, but so does everyone else, including us. it's all convenient, but it's not like convenience disproves anything.

i had my first class today in my intro to philosophy summer course, and the professor is a religious guy, and he states his religious beliefs or philosophies matter-of-factly. i even had this exchange with him; "But I don't believe in God." "Well, God believes in you" followed by a significant look which signifies that he just made a really good point. i started feeling sorry for him though because i had an answer to everything he could say to me, and some other kid was being confrontational too, and he looked old and tired, and he mispronounced the name sof all of the pre-socratics horribly. so i stopped being confrontational and just gave him the answers that he could say "Aha!" to, or laugh. and i managed to get myself the "smart guy" reputation already :dont: but i know i'm just some brat with a computer and access to ultra-condensed 21st century ideas with which to criticize ancient ones without any original intellectual effort on my part. but i still think i'm right too happppy

kendoiwan

12 Jun 2006, 08:24 PM

:rofl: classic :joft:

sbw

12 Jun 2006, 10:05 PM

:joft: 4 president

Scott

Architectonic

13 Jun 2006, 07:10 AM

i had my first class today in my intro to philosophy summer course, and the professor is a religious guy, and he states his religious beliefs or philosophies matter-of-factly. i even had this exchange with him; "But I don't believe in God." "Well, God believes in you" followed by a significant look which signifies that he just made a really good point.

LOL
What does the guy expect when teaching a philosophy course?

booyalab

13 Jun 2006, 07:28 AM

-liberal/secular people (like me) are screwed

yeah, you're such an outsider

rivercrow

13 Jun 2006, 01:19 PM

I just hope my homeschooling sister doesn't see this. :eek:

kendoiwan

13 Jun 2006, 03:52 PM

I love (it's thoroughly entertaining) and Hate (the shit is annoying when you're subject to it) the way no matter what happens to dispute their unwavering faith they find a way to ignore or minimize it...
For example: say their pastor gets shot in a drive by (I made it up dammmit)
them: well the lord works in mysterious ways and God is Good, so if pastor got killed it must be for the greater good...:wtf:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/12/winkler.indicted/index.html

Well at least it wasn't a drive-by:joft:

sbw

13 Jun 2006, 05:36 PM

that picture is creepy--she reminds me of ed norton in 'primal fear'.

Scott

sbw

13 Jun 2006, 05:37 PM

yeah, you're such an outsider

so indie, that :joft: guy...

Scott

Pierce

13 Jun 2006, 06:22 PM

But what exactly are you afraid of? Are you afraid that Christians will impose some sort of Sharia law? Can you name five things that you believe Christians involved in law and politics might do that frighten you most?

Most Christians I know have a "salt of the earth" mentality, meaning they want to preserve humanity from quickly sliding down the slippery slope of moral decay into degeneracy. Frankly, they haven't been very successful in the last 50 years or so. Mainly, I see them opposing the agendas of leftists seeking to forge a radical new national identity (witout respect for religion or heritage). Clearly, what the leftists perceive as progress, the Christians perceive as decline. Perhaps, if they're successful, they'll find a way to reinforce support of two-parent (husband and wife) families for a while.

Anyway, I'm curious what the biggest fears about Christian involvement in politics and law are. Loss of momentum in certain "progressive" causes? Which ones? Abortion? Gay rights? Freedom from being exposed to certain religious ideas? What are the top five?

kwis

13 Jun 2006, 06:26 PM

The biggest fear is that they dont listen to reason... and they are in charge.

nomir_dva

13 Jun 2006, 06:57 PM

Anyway, I'm curious what the biggest fears about Christian involvement in politics and law are. Loss of momentum in certain "progressive" causes? Which ones? Abortion? Gay rights? Freedom from being exposed to certain religious ideas? What are the top five?

Different people have different ideas about what constitues traditional values. Most Christians probably wouldn't oppose most 'progressive' causes anyway. But the fundamentalist minority that may or may not have disproportionate political influence has different ideas than most religious people in the U.S.

If those are the people that are being discussed here (and I think they are), then I am afraid of a curtailment of civil liberties in return for the notion of greater security, which could be encouraged by ideas that the modern world is fundamentally dangerous and corrupt. A decline in toleration for dissenting ideas, beliefs, and lifestyles is another concern. Increased militarism is a possibility as well, given the same basic beliefs about the world and a desire to proselytize. Those are three, in any case.

And most people currently involved in politics call themselves Christians anyway. If the issue is some kind of change in the ideology of those involved in politics, then we probably are talking about Christian fundamentalists.

sbw

13 Jun 2006, 07:12 PM

ptGatsby

13 Jun 2006, 07:13 PM

But what exactly are you afraid of? Are you afraid that Christians will impose some sort of Sharia law? Can you name five things that you believe Christians involved in law and politics might do that frighten you most?

Uhh, do you mean like prohibition? Banning same-sex couples? Attacks on science?

Or maybe you mean stuff like introducing religion into schools, pledges, and what not?

Or perhaps you mean more along the political lines, like legislating any and everything that people can get riled up again... be it more questionable stuff like abortion or assisted suicide... all the way down to lower stuff like contraceptives and blood transfusion.

So, yah, I'm not worried. At all. Its not like governments start divinely inspired wars back by religious bodies, legislate morality or use force on dissidents. Never happened, never will... Especially not in the US. That's unthinkable.

sbw

13 Jun 2006, 07:15 PM

thanks, pt. we're way past 5 items now.

Scott

joft

13 Jun 2006, 07:50 PM

i'm pretty concerned about the less easily definable social effects. perceived oppression, sexual repression, marginalization, alienation, etc. the idea of a "christian state" (with schools where christianity was taught to kids even from non-christian descent, and stuff like that) sickened me even when i was a christian, because even then i didn't think conversion was supposed to happen through peer-pressure :wtf:

Pierce

13 Jun 2006, 09:11 PM

1. Christians will declare martial law and curtail personal freedoms due to a belief in the existence of evil and possibly try to confront threats militarily.
2. Christians will cause people to become intolerant of _________.
3. Christians will reinstitute prohibition.
4. Christians will outlaw and prosecute gays.
5. Christians will attack science.
6. Christians will "introduce" religion into schools and pledges.
7. Christians will introduce religion into whatnot.
8. Christians will cause certain members of society to feel abnormal or not included in our otherwise homogenized society.
9. Christians will outlaw the manufacture and distribution of condoms.
10. Christians will outlaw blood transfusions.
11. Christians will get the masses all riled up again about settled issues.
12. Christians will pressure non-Christians to become Christians.
13. Christians with make Christianity the "state religion" and spread rampantly through oppression and cohersion, ruthlessly stamping out all dissidents.

Really? That bad?

Is there anything good that might come of Christians becoming more involved in law and politics? Or, should they stay away from all social and politicaly issues entirely?

Are we talking about freemdom of religion (Christianity) or freedom from religion (Christianity)?

Is the world better off with or without Christians?

ptGatsby

13 Jun 2006, 10:03 PM

Really? That bad?

Yes.

Lets look at it;

1) Hyperbole, not what was stated. However, 'Christians' as a whole are voting along the lines of exactly what you have described. 'Martial law' via incremental legislation, military action, and the removal of multiple personal freedoms... So yes, I guess, if not quite so dramatic.

2) Just look at the fundie culture; they already do it plenty.

3) Why not again? No fear they will reinstitute it really... its the point that it does influence and is not harmless.

4) "Sanctity of marriage", "Sodomy laws"? Yes, already happened. Yes, in the US. Yes, now and in the past.

5) Has already happened

6) Has already happened

7) Has already happened

8) Already happens, see 2), see 4)...

9) well, that's a bit strong. But only slightly. There is just such a movement right now, if not more... article in the NYT a while back, lobbyist groups... Something about "love in a relationship"...

10) Again, you are paraphrasing something too strongly. It was more conceptual when I posted it - will attempt to legislate medical procedures. Transfusions are more specific to.. umm... well damn, I forget the denomination.

11) Already happens... common people, evolution is a dead issue. Give it up.

12) Already happens... but then I guess its possible that saying you are going to hell or ostracising you isn't 'pressure'...

13) Nice hypebole. Regardless, yes, that already happens - just not quite the way you are saying it.

Is there anything good that might come of Christians becoming more involved in law and politics? Or, should they stay away from all social and politicaly issues entirely?

Stay away from all political issues entirely. Or just switch to a theology, so that we know exactly what freedoms we have.

Are we talking about freemdom of religion (Christianity) or freedom from religion (Christianity)?

We are talking about a group of people attempt to use force to make people live by their own beliefs. Yes, using law is a form of force.

Personally, I'd be happy to be free from religion as a whole... regardless of what it may be. You can believe whatever you want, just keep me, directly or indirectly (ie: politics and law) out of it.

Is the world better off with or without Christians?

Who knows.

The world is better off without people who feel entitled to tell you how to live your life.

Pierce

13 Jun 2006, 11:51 PM

distraction tactics

13 Jun 2006, 11:59 PM

Well, the point is that most of the items on the list do not represent a radicalization of social norms, certainly not from a historical view of even the last 50 years (hyperbole excluded). In the ensuing years there has been much social change, some good and some bad.

It seems to me the left's resistance to Christians/conservatives is that they fear losing ground they have recently gained on political/social issues. The horror they ascribe to Christian influenece seems overblown and disingenuinous -- or downright silly. Suggesting that prohibition would be an objective of Christians is absurd. I'm surprised not to see the Spanish Inquistion on the list. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Christians will be in opposition to the newly formed pedophelia party in the Netherlands.

What amazes me is the virulence so often expressed toward Christianity in America as compared to, say, Islam. Now, there's a religion I would definitely not want to see gain power.

Religion in all its political forms is to be despised. Thankfully, Islamic extremism will not be considered by the mainstream in western socities anytime soon. Christian extremism, even with the benefit of the reformation several hundred years past, threatens to pull us back into a pre-modern state in social, moral, and technological form.

'The left' is indeed concerned about losing the rights and freedoms it has gained from religious overbearance in the past 50 years. Gaining those rights signified a change in morality from historic faith to secular ethics that reflect 21st century living.

Do you have a position you'd like to state, or are you just defensive that people dare be so vocal in their dislike for religion?

sbw

14 Jun 2006, 12:00 AM

ptGatsby

14 Jun 2006, 12:26 AM

It seems to me the left's resistance to Christians/conservatives is that they fear losing ground they have recently gained on political/social issues.

The 'left' is defined as anti-christian? It is only christian to be a conservative?

Then why is it that the more 'christian' supported governments tend to be less 'conservative'? They spend more, increase government more, have more military conflicts, erode rights faster...

This is the problem! Christians vote along issues that are religious, not political. Get the hell out of politics and let the individual make their own choices. Tell them they are going to hell, but don't outlaw their acts.

Suggesting that prohibition would be an objective of Christians is absurd.

Why absurd? It happened.

Again you ignore 12 points and latch onto one that was only exampled because it happened in the past.

Prohibition is what happens when religion gets into politics. That's the current risk of what is happening. It is what is happening, one step at a time, anytime 'seculars' don't fight back.

I'm surprised not to see the Spanish Inquistion on the list.

Holy smokes! Do you even know the history of the Spanish Inquisition? The fundamental causes of this was the elevation of christianity above law; where if you were non-christian, you would be persecuted! The whole thing cascaded down from Christian mobs looting... forcing jews to convert to christianity!

Egad... if you were going to pick an example, pick one that doesn't show the problems with religion integrating into politics.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Christians will be in opposition to the newly formed pedophelia party in the Netherlands.

What, implying that only Christians would be? Or maybe that if you aren't Christian, you'd vote for them?

Cause as we all know, Christians are most certainly not pedophiles...

What amazes me is the virulence so often expressed toward Christianity in America as compared to, say, Islam. Now, there's a religion I would definitely not want to see gain power.

Maybe it has to do with Islamic beliefs not being pushed into laws... but no, it couldn't be that - Its just a double standard, right? Nothing to do with the current concerns!

Chimera

14 Jun 2006, 01:03 AM

I worry about any ideology gaining too much power. Even the most enlightened one will turn sour with no opposition.

I see religious factions as a useful counterweight of the excesses of liberal secularism (e.g. political correctness, collectivism) and the idolization of the state as being equivalent to the common good. Probably the two greatest tyrants of the 20th century, Stalin and Mao, aggressively suppressed religion, because they knew it was a threat to their status as supreme arbiters of right and wrong. It's their very irrationality and stubbornness that allows religious factions to play this important role well.

The current US administration pays lip service to fundie causes to get their support. With maybe the exception of the head dufus who is so easily manipulated, IMO the current administration is a mix of cynics and sociopaths who see the populace as tools to be used for their own aggrandizement and enrichment. In other words, typical politicians.

Psy-goat

14 Jun 2006, 01:26 AM

Apostasius

14 Jun 2006, 01:35 AM

In a related topic to the OP, I found the Fresh Air NPR feature of Michelle Goldberg's book, Kingdom Coming, to be quite interesting... and frightening. The link will allow you to listen to the archived program.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5398604

distraction tactics

14 Jun 2006, 02:58 AM

I don't consider myself a religious person, but I think yours is a very narrow interpretation of what religion in politics means.

Narrow, therefore incorrect? Gimme a break.

Winnipeg raised a Baptist minister by the name of Tommy Douglas, who went on to champion medicare in Saskatchewan, which later spread to the rest of Canada. The social gospel spread throughout the prairies representing poorer people where business and labour unions wouldn't or couldn't.

Prarie collectives formed with little or no religious influence to help people with hard times. Acquaint yourself with a little something called 'reformed liberalism', or perhaps, 'welfare state' and come to the obvious conclusion it's not an exclusive religious principle.

The general strike of Winnipeg was a very pivotal event with a lot of left-leaning implications. Was it religiously motivated? Of course not. Canada never broke away from its paternal King and has always been a more moderate nation that the US. To lay sole credit at religion's feet is an insult.

Don't you think that the 'left' in the US has more to gain by narrowing the gap between themselves and the right by speaking to the people and their values? Looking at Kerrys website in 2004 was disappointing, it bulleted all the actions it was taking on behalf of the dispossessed and the different, but seemed to leave out the middle class suburban voter. They seemed to vote en masse for the republicans whether it was in their interest or not

Personally, no, considering that the United States' 'left' is about on par with Canada's 'right'. 50% of the American voting public needs to give their head a shake and do the American empire the justice it deserves by promoting it's best features - and as a Canadian, I can tell you there is a lot to admire about the US. There is very little about the left's values that don't already ready mirror the right's values, or the values set out in the American consitution. A mere smattering:

-Freedom of thought and conscience
-All men equal before the law (to include blacks, but not gays?)
-Social welfare so that families aren't forced onto the streets - if it's a Tommy Douglas Christian principle, then why isn't the most religious western nation a socialist utopia?

Hillary Clinton is touting her Methodist past. Why should the fundies have a monopoly on the bible. Why can't everybody jump on the bandwagon and isolate the extemes? Doesn't the bible say something about not killing and not coveting oil fields? Religious zealotry at least has a reference point that jingoistic nationalism doesn't.

Are you suggesting that all people have to derive their values are from religious texts or nationalistic dogmas? I'm not sure your point, because I get mine from neither. Why do people need the Bible to inform on ANY political issue, considering that any practical, legal decision is handled by the secular courts and laws, and not religious tribunals?

As far as Hillary touting her religious past, what does that have to do beyond superficial pandering to a voting block that needs someone to tell them what to think? Sure, it's in the Democrat's best interests to be pragmatic in whatever way possible to get votes, but it's a cheap tactic and in no way noble. It's glossing over the huge problem that religious prejudice and superstition has over the affairs of state.

Psy-goat

14 Jun 2006, 06:11 AM

Pierce

14 Jun 2006, 09:03 AM

Religion in all its political forms is to be despised. Thankfully, Islamic extremism will not be considered by the mainstream in western socities anytime soon. Christian extremism, even with the benefit of the reformation several hundred years past, threatens to pull us back into a pre-modern state in social, moral, and technological form.

'The left' is indeed concerned about losing the rights and freedoms it has gained from religious overbearance in the past 50 years. Gaining those rights signified a change in morality from historic faith to secular ethics that reflect 21st century living.

Do you have a position you'd like to state, or are you just defensive that people dare be so vocal in their dislike for religion?

Yes, yes, you are correct in every word, but only if Jesus was a liar and a madman. Otherwise, you are out of luck.

As is obvious from my posts, I tossed off secular ethics in favor of historical (and dynamic) faith many years ago. I find secularism shallow and pretentious. Excoriating charicatures of Christianity and broadbrushing the faith as if it were merely a party of fools, pretenders and bigots is a poor defense of anything. I feel no compunction to defend God or Christianity or Christians, but, on occassion, I like to point out that people who dare to be so vocal about their dislike for religion often only give the impression of ranting from a perspective as least as narrow as the one they attack.

Serotonin

14 Jun 2006, 09:09 AM

Piousness and intelligence, piousness and decency, and piousness and competence exist on completely independent axes, in my experience.

Pierce

14 Jun 2006, 09:22 AM

nobody mentioned most of the items on your list. stop exaggerating. I could clarify your deliberate misrepresentations about a few things, but that seems like a waste of time, and I'm certain that most of the other members can read as well as I can. EDIT: PT GATSBY THANKS

and, to answer your worthwhile question at the end, I believe that the world is better WITH christians--because I believe christianity to be basically a control device to keep the irresponsible and the stupid in line.

Scott

This one is funny. Yes, someone did mention everything on the list; I did not make it up from whole cloth. I do admit to tightening up the wording a bit -- and I realize, when plainly stated, some of them seem ridiculous, which is the point. Could I have worded them differently to make them seem more credible? Sure, but that would obscure my point.

As for your religion is the opiate for the masses theory (there I go tightening up wording again), it's hardly original. It assumes a master manipulator (not God). And who do you think that would be?

Ckyzxr

14 Jun 2006, 11:05 AM

Sad to say but the US government and constitution was built on Christian principles. What a conundrum in that I have the "freedom" to refer to the practicing Christian as a deluded dipshit.

Is the world better off with or without Christians?

With. Mainly due to the protection Christianity provides (me) from other fundamental religious zealots at this time in human history. Humans as a entity are much to dangerous without some form of moral structure assignment. Sick and sad, but it took me too many years to become comfortable with my existence. Some never come this far along and prefer to wallow in the safe delusions of religion-based values and beliefs. What else do they have? Most/some here on INTPc have moved past this artificial security but we are a minority for sure.

I'm hoping that I (and those I care about) live a life without major governmental change and the death/destruction that surely follow.

Be good.
Ckyzxr

distraction tactics

14 Jun 2006, 11:21 AM

your words not mine, didn't say you were wrong, I would only point out that the idea that one compartmentalizes religion from politics from justice or social mores yadda yadda is an artificial abstraction. You stated that all religion in politics was to be despised, yet it seems that religion guides peoples normative thoughts and politics is a means of acting on them. Seems to me too, the idea of secular humanism is also a religion of sorts. Should secular humanists be despised for being political too?

Maybe I will ask my secular humanist preacher the next time I got to my secular humanist church. What happened to common sense and good government? Is it a facet of American-styled absolutism that everything must be treated as a dogma? My political views owe a lot to the writings of John Ralston Saul and his case for the liberal democracy as an ambiguous, uncertain state. Through the principle of equality and freedom we cycle back our problems to refine the best system possible, devoid of religious superstitition. That 'everything is a religion' line is pure garbage.

I never mentioned the Wpg strike, your inference not mine, did you telepathically get the impression that I thought divine intervention had something to do with it? Maybe you have demons at work inside your head.
I give neither sole nor soul credit to religion for the wpg strike.

I am asking you to make the case for Christian influence on progressive politics in Canada. Your Tommy Douglas example is clever and fresh in light of what I usually hear, but it's all you've got. The point is that the prevalance of any kind of leftism in Canada stems from the political and economic, not religious. Quebec, a catholic province and the least religious of all is also the most liberal. Ironically, the Christian right in Canada under the influence of its southern neighbours is trying to undermine if not completely undo what Douglas achieved.

That Canada is a more moderate country than the US can be attributed to minority governments, stronger provincial powers, fewer social upheavals, more gradual implementation of social programs and a middle class that has had a larger part to play in the governance of the country particularly in the implementation of tarrifs a hundred or so years ago. Also Canada is not a major international empire, their bourgeois is not resident and can't supervise voting directly.

Like the 3 'minority' terms of Chretien throughout the 90's? Or the 2 'minority' Mulrooney mandates before that? Or the 'minority' of Trudeau in the early 80's that saw our new consititution? Oh wait, all those pivotal mandates were not minorities at all! Minority governments in Canada have never lasted beyond 18 months, and prior to our current upheavel, the last one was Clark's Conservatives in what I believe was '83, 23 years ago. Minority governments do not influence, and are no influence on Canada's moderation. In function, minority governments can form a coalition to act as a majority. Their effect is neglible beyond a reason for grumbling we have to vote so often.

No, but many do. Lets call it the Lowest Common Denominator factor. I have heard it said that Islam spread as quickly and easily as it did because it was a very simple religion to understand and practice, therefore very egalitarian. Maybe people understand 'Returning to the Basics' more than they understand a complex social program or they understand smiting thine enemy more than they understand an army of Ivy League educated State Department employees engineering peaceful arrangements between heads of state.

I think my point may be a little more cynical than you may have thought. Canada has a minority government, Germany, I believe has a minority government, Italys government only just squeaked in, as did both of the George Bush presidencies. Modern elections are engineered far more than you may ever care to know, they seem to narrow down to a statistically tiny % of the population who push a candidate one way or another. People are focus grouped and micro managed in a way that would make you paranoid.

If people understand issues in terms of religion why shouldn't the 'left' use that language to lessen the differences between candidates, to neutralize differences that an opponent may try to exploit. Joft complains in the OP that you can't reason with the calvary cavalry, while I understand that feeling I can also see that the other side has gone through the same frustration and responded by organizing. Democracy is the rule of the most vocal minority afterall.

I don't see much I disagree with beyond what I've already stated. I think a deeper understanding of Canadian voters is needed, however. Up until recent years people voted for their MPs as much as they they did the party, if not more. Which explains how in 1993, the rural riding in which I was raised elected a Liberal, but tossed her out after she broke her word, and in the next election saw her in 4th place for votes, BEHIND the conservative candidiate (a party which in 1993 only received 3 seats in the entire country due to Mulrooney fallout). It also explains how federally over the past decade, Manitoba has voted Reform/Alliance/Conservative, yet has given the NDP (the most left of the bunch) 3 terms provincially. Canadian voters are a different beast than American.

You call it pandering, what do you think elections are about? Candidates aren't asking you how to run the country, they're asking you for permission to run the country. Most of us are completely oblivious to the interests that the parties represent. How many people do you think understand the play of events? 50%? 20%? Many think that only about 1% of the people have an understanding of the forces at play in the political arena.More people are involved in the play, they just don't know (and don't know that they don't know) the consequences of what they are doing. Politicians pander to people who are religious, people who are progressive, people who think that they are upper middle class and so on.

True. This doesn't mean for a second I'm going to humour someone's batshit beliefs about the universe, or their misguided will to enforce it on the rest of the population. If that's particularly distressing to anyone, I am not closed to the idea of donating money so they can buy a box of tissues.

Karl Rove was an expert in dividing the country and playing people against each other. Secularists are afraid of Christians, Christians of godless people etc. etc. If you're religious you're getting played (vs.the damned heathens), upwardly mobile? you're getting played.(vs. damned welfare bums) discouraged and won't vote, you're getting played(against yourself). Consider yourself educated? You're getting played.(your ego) no matter who you are you can be played.

Personally I'm not sure why religious people need to be worldly, I'm not even sure to what extent INTPs need to be worldly. I'm mildly curious about religions because they often represent the best in art, music, learning and civilization, someties also the worst. I like politics because it is part of cafe culture, no more or less.

If what I know about the tenets of Christianity is correct, they shouldn't be worldly. But they are. Why do you state with clarity the gritty, pragmatic aspects of the election process but then glaze over the negative influence religion plays on the whole of the political scene? No abortion, gays marginalized, creationism in schools, public endorsements of their faith... Can I throw illegal wars, phone taps, and being jailed without due process in there as well? Or is Dubya just joking when he says he 'speaks' to God? His father even said to the effect that the godless should not be considered American citizens. blows my fucking mind It's like you're willing to take a punch from someone, but then refuse to make a moral call on the behaviour in the first place.

Don't study elite systems at Uni -- you probably don't want to know.

Um, thanks for the tip.

distraction tactics

14 Jun 2006, 11:31 AM

Yes, yes, you are correct in every word, but only if Jesus was a liar and a madman. Otherwise, you are out of luck.

As is obvious from my posts, I tossed off secular ethics in favor of historical (and dynamic) faith many years ago. I find secularism shallow and pretentious. Excoriating charicatures of Christianity and broadbrushing the faith as if it were merely a party of fools, pretenders and bigots is a poor defense of anything. I feel no compunction to defend God or Christianity or Christians, but, on occassion, I like to point out that people who dare to be so vocal about their dislike for religion often only give the impression of ranting from a perspective as least as narrow as the one they attack.

*yawn*

Dom

14 Jun 2006, 12:29 PM

and the last thing is just the general Christian shtick about our founding fathers and how our country is supposed to be based on religious principles.

I always find it amusing that the decendents of those that fled to the new world, to escape discrimination for thier religious non-conformity, should now try SO hard to enforce their own ideas of Moral Conformity upon the Land of the Free!!

:banghead:

sbw

14 Jun 2006, 12:50 PM

This one is funny. Yes, someone did mention everything on the list; I did not make it up from whole cloth. I do admit to tightening up the wording a bit -- and I realize, when plainly stated, some of them seem ridiculous, which is the point. Could I have worded them differently to make them seem more credible? Sure, but that would obscure my point.

what you call 'tightening' I call misrepresentation or at least exaggeration.

the fact that your examples were not remotely credible didn't necessarily serve to obscure your point so much as undermine it.

As for your religion is the opiate for the masses theory (there I go tightening up wording again), it's hardly original. It assumes a master manipulator (not God). And who do you think that would be?

of course it isn't original. its not even necessarily that plausible; its merely not as implausible as the invisible-man-in-the-sky theory.

society has always contained a 'master manipulator', as the primary job of every government is to figure out how to keep the masses subdued. this is for their own aims and seems to have been a persistent feature of human civilizations.

Scott

joft

14 Jun 2006, 01:04 PM

distraction tactics

14 Jun 2006, 01:12 PM

God and gays: churchgoers divider (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060613/ts_usatoday/godandgayschurchgoersdivided)

Interestingly, I'd rather the church stick to its views than create a cafeteria Christianity mish-mash. I think it creates enough of an effect to shock sensible into questioning the role religion plays in their lives, and perhaps even encourages them to consider how fulfilling a life they can lead with no religion at all.

sbw

14 Jun 2006, 01:34 PM

supposition: what percentage of christians can even describe the nature of their own church? its not all of them. some people, christian and otherwise, are incapable of grasping the big questions.

for what percentage of christians is church nothing more than a social event? I mean, they'll tell you they believe, but they can't tell you why. (I'm assuming that pierce is one of many who can describe the "why"; the other ones need not be taken seriously...I'm curious what percentage they comprise)

Scott

Dom

14 Jun 2006, 02:10 PM

One can not legislate morality,

I'm a Christian, of sorts, and I have a mish mash theology (having a need to try to make it all, make sense and without contracdicting itself. This means I'd probably be called heretic for some things I believe). However Romans 8 leaves enough ambiguity for God to let in alot of the 'billions' you believe to be condemed to death (the whole there is enough of God in the conscience of the Gentle passage).

However this debate is about how far should religious views be imposed upon a population, or how far should a particular religiously inspired morality be imposed. I don't find this a difficult question, I fundamentally believe that religion and government should and must never be united. The way government can twist religion to their purposes is scary. But my main concern comes from the attack on peoples freedoms.

As an example, I am a Christian male, as such I 'should' believe that abortion is wrong, or some sort of sin. Personally I feel I have no right to impose any view on abortion through legislation. I'd not ban it. After all who am I? I'm a man, so how do I justify legislating something which primarily effects woman? Plus how can I expect these women to conform to my opinions? I believe, they man not. To their mind there is no problem. My idea may be right, theirs maybe right, why should I deminish their responsibility by legslating against theirs? Same with many of the 'hot' topics. What I think is irrelevant, I do not have the right to try to restrict other peoples freedoms and responsibilities. If, and it's a big if, these things are a problem before God then would that not be between that individual and God? It has nothing to do with me!!!

I get a shiver down my spine when I read about things like Generation Joshua. If people believe, and then enough people believe, there would be no need for legislation. The Christian 'Walk' is about controlling yourself, not about being controlled and certainly not about controlling others.

If a young woman, had come to me, back when I worked with young people in the Church, and said she was pregant and wanted an abortion, then I'd have talk to her, I'd have discussed all her options without trying to push one, and then support her, regardless of which decision she made.

The Christian should be supporting people in difficult situations and helping them, not pouring condemnation on something which must already be an incredibly difficult situation.

People should be free to believe what they like, if legislation is based upon any particular set of religious beliefs then they are not free to beleive what they want.

nomir_dva

14 Jun 2006, 02:58 PM

1. Christians will declare martial law and curtail personal freedoms due to a belief in the existence of evil and possibly try to confront threats militarily.

I'll respond to your first paraphrase, as it seems most clearly derived from my post. Here is what I wrote:

[. . .]I am afraid of a curtailment of civil liberties in return for the notion of greater security, which could be encouraged by ideas that the modern world is fundamentally dangerous and corrupt.[. . . ]Increased militarism is a possibility as well, given the same basic beliefs about the world and a desire to proselytize.

You have clearly misrepresented what I wrote. I did not argue that there is no such thing as evil (whether I believe that or not is irrelevant), nor did I say anything about martial law. I suggested that people who believe that the modern world is fundamentally corrupt and filled with evil people who may be in league with Satan are more likely to support militaristic policies. If someone believes that the world is filled with enemies of his most deeply held beliefs, he will probably be more likely to support an increase in military spending than someone who does not. Black-and-white ideas about the moral character of foreign peoples, governments, and belief systems make it easier to bomb with a clear conscience. None of this is necessarily unique to Christianity. I could say most of the same things about fascism. But Christian fundamentalists are more visible than fascists in American political life.

Finally, I said nothing about confronting threats with military force. The issue is not real threats, but questionable or nonexistent ones.

Carebear

14 Jun 2006, 03:59 PM

Good point, nomir_dva. There are two basic ways to see international conflicts. One is the "Good vs Evil"- way of seing it, implying that some people are inherently evil and need to be fought with force. This is the way both the US and Extremist Muslims see the world today, and in such a view, there's every reason to use maximum force, as the evil needs to be quenched, and the goal justifies the means. The other way of seing it is often referred to as the "Security discourse". This theory assumes that people all over the world are primarily concerned with their own community's security and well being, and that act like terrorism and war is a response to a percieved threat against this security. In this theory, any use of force will automatically endanger the security of one of the parties, increasing the conflict instead of solving it.

The "Good vs Evil" discourse explains the extreme rise in terrorism after the occupation of Iraq an Afghanistan as a the last, vicious stand of Evil against Good, which prompts Good to use even more force to defeat Evil forever.

The "Security discourse" explains the extreme rise in terrorism after the occupation of Iraq an Afghanistan as a natural reaction of a lot of individuals that see their security being threatened. In this discourse use of greater force means even more threat to security and even more terrorism. (Like Vietnam)

A belief that there is an ultimately good God and an ultimately evil Satan working in this world lends it's power to the "Good vs Evil"-discourse, i.e. the Bush government and the Muslim extremists.

Since I personally subscribe to the security discourse view of world affairs, I am concerned by the strong position of the religious fundies in the US.

On internal politics, I share your view Moridin, except I'm no longer a Christian. (Or I might be called a superheretical agostic Christian, depending on definitions.("The old testament is an interesting historical legend, much like the Illiad, St. Paul was an opportunistic fundamentalist and Jesus was a charismatic, philosophical genious, possibly XNFJ, and probably not the son of God".)

Dom

14 Jun 2006, 04:20 PM

Well as for the world, external politics,

The maxim "Evil begets Evil" seems to spring to mind.

As an example, A nation responds to terrorism by killing suspected terrorists. But then the suspected terrorists borther is rather annoyed and replaces him. Then as the brother strikes back so the nation shoots/bombs other suspected terrorists in response, and more people then get 'radicalised'

It's all a circle, how to break it is the question.....

Mind you I like the old proverb, "If your enemy is hungry, then feed him. If he is thristy, give him water. In doing so you are heaping live coals upon his head"

Biff_Loman

14 Jun 2006, 04:26 PM

Yes, yes, you are correct in every word, but only if Jesus was a liar and a madman.

This is coming from a few posts back now, and I realize my comment is somewhat spurious, but:

Jesus was a liar and a madman. That is if he existed at all.

Dom

14 Jun 2006, 04:59 PM

This is coming from a few posts back now, and I realize my comment is somewhat spurious, but:

Jesus was a liar and a madman. That is if he existed at all.

No either he was a Liar and a Madman (if everythign attributed to him was said by him, such as his divinity) Or he was exactly what he said he was, in which case there are a lot of people heading for trouble!

ShadyShady

14 Jun 2006, 05:19 PM

Or he was exactly what he said he was, in which case there are a lot of people heading for trouble!

This is why I find Fred Phelps to be very amusing. He could be right, which would mean all of the so called 'progressives' screaming at him are going to hell.

Pierce

14 Jun 2006, 06:20 PM

i'll grant that there are an unfortunately high number of secularists and progressives who are impervious to reason too, but still not nearly the percentage of christians. but what worries me possibly even more, is that christians aren't just impervious to "reason," but they're pretty much entirely unaffected by anything that doesn't just agree with them. take empathy/emotion for example, you have to be pretty fucking selectively calloused and cold to just write off all the billions of unsaved souls who are doomed to eternity in torment with "well, God is a righteous judge!" and then resume your retarded "outreach program" that converts barely enough people to sustain the size of the church given the number of members "backsliding" or dying. i hear my mom's radio playing the local christian station all the time and they seriously end every show with "if this message has led you to Christ we ask you to say this prayer with us..." as though some dumbass is going to turn on that station and listen and be converted.

and you come on here spouting your righteous indignation and debating with people and what's that going to accomplish? if you win the debate, will we be more open to being ruled by christians and less upset by legislated morality based on a 2000 year old book (which itself denounces the "letter of the law" saying that God has written the "spirit of the law" on all our hearts, so what's the fucking point?)

Actually, I don't feel indignant at all. I got pretty much exactly the response I expected. And yeah, many Christians are dumb as rocks. It is kinda tough to find ones that are capable and willing to really ponder and explore the depths -- most really are like sheep. I'm not even embarrassed by the ridiculous ones or the hipocrites; what, should I try to make excuses for them? Hardly.

The idea of legislating religious morality isn't something I'm wanting to defend either. The book you mentioned is way more than 2,000 years old (most of it) and it doens't denounce the "letter of the law" at all, but declares the law perfect. Jesus came not to destroy the law, but fulfil it. In his sermon on the mount, he raised the bar -- so high it was clearly impossible to keep (to look at a woman lustfully was to already commit adultery in ones heart -- shall we outlaw looking at women lustfully?). And what does it mean to have the law of God written on the fleshly tablets of ones heart? The idea of salvation is about ridding us of guilt and condemnation -- and it's mostly internal guilt that matters. How we humans struggle with it. Many of the posts here identify the painful, sincere and desperate struggles people go through just to face another day -- it seems the last thing they would need is more condemnation.

Anyway, I suppose if you were bitten by a dog as a child you might spend your life hating dogs, but it doesn't mean that all dogs are vicious. God knows plenty of people have been bitten by religion.

Biff_Loman

14 Jun 2006, 06:26 PM

No either he was a Liar and a Madman (if everythign attributed to him was said by him, such as his divinity) Or he was exactly what he said he was, in which case there are a lot of people heading for trouble!

I no longer hold open that possibility.

Zerikin Loukbel

14 Jun 2006, 06:41 PM

I no longer hold open that possibility. Explain?

Anyway to conintue this discussion. There are alot of stupid people on both sides of the debate. What irks me is all the people on both sides that simply call the other side names and so forth. I am a Christian but have not throughly thought out where I stand on the politics part of things. You do not try to legilate morality as that is neither possible or desirable. I think part of the problem is all the anti-Christian attuitudes percieved from the liberal side of things, though biblically speaking this is to be expected. Ultimatly Christian and the world are at war, but the war should not be one of the physical from the Christian side of things at least. I do not have a clear position on where the responcibilty to legilate things ends, but I cannot support politians that I find morally repugnant.

ShadyShady

14 Jun 2006, 06:44 PM

I no longer hold open that possibility.

http://www.thesignsofthetimes.net/images/ghy-small.gif

:banana:

Biff_Loman

14 Jun 2006, 06:58 PM

Explain?

I'm an atheist. If someone claims to be the son of God, I'm not going to buy into it.

It's pretty basic.

Edit: I guess I could say that I'm an agnostic, in the sense that I recognize I cannot prove the non-existence of God, but then the same applies to all faiths and religions. Jesus' claims have no inherently greater validity than the beliefs of any people. Maybe the ancient Jews were right, and god is a vengeful Yahweh, full of wrath, who punishes the good and the bad. The concept that God might have a serious attitude problem is more commensurate with my observations of the universe than the tenets of the Christian faith.

joft

14 Jun 2006, 07:12 PM

Actually, I don't feel indignant at all.
here's a hint: don't write so formally, use less proper capitalization.

The idea of legislating religious morality isn't something I'm wanting to defend either.
...
In his sermon on the mount, he raised the bar -- so high it was clearly impossible to keep (to look at a woman lustfully was to already commit adultery in ones heart -- shall we outlaw looking at women lustfully?)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6525520/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389

ptGatsby

14 Jun 2006, 07:40 PM

Anyway, I suppose if you were bitten by a dog as a child you might spend your life hating dogs, but it doesn't mean that all dogs are vicious. God knows plenty of people have been bitten by religion.

I think you are missing the point.

I don't hate Christians. I have a friend who is a priest-to-be, I have a couple of friends that devout Muslims... We all are a circle of friends from all walks of life, from atheist to devout. I grew up with all religions. They didn't bite me.

What does happen is that a pack of rabid dogs (an analogy for utterly devoted to their instincts, kinda like utterly devoted to blind faith) decide to take over, find out that they can't force their will on everyone, so try going to the alpha-leader in the area, convince him to make laws that let them bite people when they act differently than the rabid dogs want! Now they walk into other people's home, police outside, and bite whenever something 'wrong' presents itself.

That is what the problem is. If you are like Moridin, or like my friends, or like the millions that are good Christians... then there is no issue! You can practice whatever you want, I can practice whatever I want...

That is what you hear in this thread. The denouncement of extremism and the attempts to use force to dictate one persons beliefs over another.

ShadyShady

14 Jun 2006, 07:44 PM

here's a hint: don't write so formally, use less proper capitalization.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6525520/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1125318960389

Some liberal feminists want to censor porn as much as the fundies do. I'd say it's strange that those links only mention religious conservatives as if they are the only ones doing it.

ptGatsby

14 Jun 2006, 08:06 PM

Some liberal feminists want to censor porn as much as the fundies do. I'd say it's strange that those links only mention religious conservatives as if they are the only ones doing it.

And feminists were the ones who had the most legislature done, yes.

I do not, however, see feminism in the thread topic. It is not better when two groups are doing it, rather than just one.

Pierce

14 Jun 2006, 08:21 PM

I think you are missing the point.

I don't hate Christians. I have a friend who is a priest-to-be, I have a couple of friends that devout Muslims... We all are a circle of friends from all walks of life, from atheist to devout. I grew up with all religions. They didn't bite me.

What does happen is that a pack of rabid dogs (an analogy for utterly devoted to their instincts, kinda like utterly devoted to blind faith) decide to take over, find out that they can't force their will on everyone, so try going to the alpha-leader in the area, convince him to make laws that let them bite people when they act differently than the rabid dogs want! Now they walk into other people's home, police outside, and bite whenever something 'wrong' presents itself.

That is what the problem is. If you are like Moridin, or like my friends, or like the millions that are good Christians... then there is no issue! You can practice whatever you want, I can practice whatever I want...

That is what you hear in this thread. The denouncement of extremism and the attempts to use force to dictate one persons beliefs over another.
Cool. Let me join you in denouncing extremeism. And how about engaging in thoughtful, respectful discourse? All that's fine. It's the universal denouncement of religious faith in favor of what is essentially a godless faith based system that I find so disingenuous. INTPc is full of a intelligent high-tech brains and it strikes me that ridiculing "sheep" ought to be a bit beneath them... it's like the intellectual equivalent of cow-tipping.

Pierce

14 Jun 2006, 08:30 PM

here's a hint: don't write so formally, use less proper capitalization.

s'up bro? waz shakin' in da hood? yeah, i mean jesus is da man, dude

Hmmmm...

Nah... too much work to write like that. It's like taking disorgainized thoughts, organizing them to form a cogent pattern, and then detuning them -- kinda like making non-alcoholic beer: a lot extra work and it loses the kick.

joft

14 Jun 2006, 08:44 PM

you're free to keep coming across as an asshole, it was just a hint at how you might not just in case you decide to stop hurting your own message with your delivery one day

and i don't see cow tipping here, i see real concern that these little-known fringe political undercurrents may have a disproportionately large effect on us all

ptGatsby

14 Jun 2006, 09:28 PM

Cool. Let me join you in denouncing extremeism. And how about engaging in thoughtful, respectful discourse? All that's fine. It's the universal denouncement of religious faith in favor of what is essentially a godless faith based system that I find so disingenuous. INTPc is full of a intelligent high-tech brains and it strikes me that ridiculing "sheep" ought to be a bit beneath them... it's like the intellectual equivalent of cow-tipping.

Thoughtful respectful discourse? Your ridicule via hyperbole, near misquotes and your lack of addressing the issues brought up is "a thoughtful respectful discourse"?

In any case, as part of that discourse, here is an interesting look at people who actually watch the issue;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheocracyWatch

The very first organisation (Christian Coalition) has this as their motto;

(An) active conservative grassroots political organization in America. The Christian Coalition of America offers people of faith the vehicle to be actively involved in shaping their government - from the County Courthouse to the halls of Congress.[2]

The next one (Family Research Council) is against the removal of Sodomy Laws (one of those on your list...) and against birth control education and methods (also on your list)... among others...

The next is a group with a huge talk show, etc that encourages active pressure on government...

The next seems ok... until you get to evolution topics.

So point blank: What is your stance and what is your belief? The problems have been mentioned... the groups responsible for it are well known. We can trace the legislation, we have lists of the lobbiest groups. Its not hard to present concrete evidence.

Do you see it as ok to make 'gays illegal'? To influence schools via science and general knowledge? These are lobby groups, Christian ones, that are trying to have these passed. Yes, it worries me. Why not you? Do you believe it is right to have these laws and policies in place?

Pierce

14 Jun 2006, 10:49 PM

Thoughtful respectful discourse? Your ridicule via hyperbole, near misquotes and your lack of addressing the issues brought up is "a thoughtful respectful discourse"?

In any case, as part of that discourse, here is an interesting look at people who actually watch the issue;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheocracyWatch

The very first organisation (Christian Coalition) has this as their motto;

(An) active conservative grassroots political organization in America. The Christian Coalition of America offers people of faith the vehicle to be actively involved in shaping their government - from the County Courthouse to the halls of Congress.[2]

The next one (Family Research Council) is against the removal of Sodomy Laws (one of those on your list...) and against birth control education and methods (also on your list)... among others...

The next is a group with a huge talk show, etc that encourages active pressure on government...

The next seems ok... until you get to evolution topics.

So point blank: What is your stance and what is your belief? The problems have been mentioned... the groups responsible for it are well known. We can trace the legislation, we have lists of the lobbiest groups. Its not hard to present concrete evidence.

Do you see it as ok to make 'gays illegal'? To influence schools via science and general knowledge? These are lobby groups, Christian ones, that are trying to have these passed. Yes, it worries me. Why not you? Do you believe it is right to have these laws and policies in place?

My little window time to engage in this thread has about run out, sorry to say. I did visit your Theocracy Watch site. Truthfully, I was half expecting to find truly fringe elements along the lines of Appalachain snake charmer cults and such. I was genuinely surprised to find likes of James Dobson and Phyllis Schlafly prominently on the list of dangerous right-wingers looking to overthrow society with oppressive religious torture techniques. I've read lots of material from both of them, and I find them insightful and genuinely caring of individuals, families and society as a whole. If you think these folks are the big danger that our society and culture faces -- well, the gulf between our views is so wide we're not even speaking the same language.

"'... the agenda of the Christian right is to replace the Constitution with biblical law,' said Kathleen Damiani, president of TheocracyWatch." If you think that statement is anything more than false, misleading and inflamatory, designed to frighten lefties into action, then I'm wasting my time writing this. Talk about hyperbole, sheesh. At least my hyperbole is intended to provoke thought and discussion, not deceive.

As for my specific views on the list of items, I don't think they should, would or could happen in this day and age, nor do I think there is any danger of them slipping through, should the lefties bat an eye. As for the play by play specifics, I'm out of time, but you can read stuff by James or Phyllis and that will be pretty close to my views.

joft

14 Jun 2006, 10:53 PM

"'... the agenda of the Christian right is to replace the Constitution with biblical law,' said Kathleen Damiani, president of TheocracyWatch." If you think that statement is anything more than false, misleading and inflamatory, designed to frighten lefties into action, then I'm wasting my time writing this. Talk about hyperbole, sheesh.
i hear them every day saying that the constitution was based on the bible and our laws are based on biblical laws, & c

ptGatsby

14 Jun 2006, 11:27 PM

Obviously there is a gap, or you are completely unaware of the entire movements behind dominionism.

I find them insightful and genuinely caring of individuals, families and society as a whole.

Who have no problem forcing their 'caring' onto other people, apparently. Who run giant think tanks and force policy in washington.

I don't care how nice they are or how nice they sound or how caring they are for families. If you disagree with legislating morality, you disagree with them... no matter how much you may agree with their opinion.

Here's a bit of info too, from Slate, on James Dobson;

He's already leveraging his new power. When a thank-you call came from the White House, Dobson issued the staffer a blunt warning that Bush 'needs to be more aggressive' about pressing the religious right's pro-life, anti-gay rights agenda, or it would 'pay a price in four years.' And when the pro-choice Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter made conciliatory noises about appointing moderates to the Supreme Court, Dobson launched a fevered campaign to prevent him from assuming the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which until then he had been expected to inherit. Dobson is now a Republican kingmaker... Dobson [unlike other religious figures involved in lobbying and politics] has talked about bringing down the GOP if it fails him.

But you are telling me not to worry about the influence of these people, right? Nothing to see here... just move on?

And if you are following the founder of a political lobbyiest, pushing for huge moral legislation now (but not before, true)... I don't know what to say... Apparently you believe that it is ok to legislate these beliefs.

If you think that statement is anything more than false, misleading and inflamatory, designed to frighten lefties into action, then I'm wasting my time writing this. Talk about hyperbole, sheesh. At least my hyperbole is intended to provoke thought and discussion, not deceive.

Regardless, that statement needs to be false, right? That is exactly what those under the flag of dominionism are aiming for... That is what is broadcast publicly... There is a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. So, lets see;

They believe it
They talk about it
They act on it.

I'd say its getting real close to being true...

Biff_Loman

14 Jun 2006, 11:46 PM

Okay, so I just googled Focus on the Family and took a quick look at their website, and read one article.

http://www.family.org/fofmag/pp/a0040693.cfm

What a mess.

But facts are seldom referenced in the attack upon the family — an attack which ultimately sets itself up against the nature of God (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Well, what does 2 Corinthians 10:5 actually say?

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." - NIV

So rather than doing the real work of sorting through biblical scripture to find evidence to back up their assertions, the author relies upon a catch-all verse that puts the stamp of God on his argument. Nice. It's not even internally consistent.

Biff_Loman

15 Jun 2006, 07:54 PM

Dammit, I was really hoping we could keep this up.

ptGatsby

15 Jun 2006, 08:02 PM

Dammit, I was really hoping we could keep this up.

Sure, why not... What side of the argument do you want?

Biff_Loman

15 Jun 2006, 08:15 PM

As a fundie in my former life, I could probably simulate one with a fair degree of accuracy.

distraction tactics

15 Jun 2006, 08:50 PM

Cool. Let me join you in denouncing extremeism. And how about engaging in thoughtful, respectful discourse? All that's fine. It's the universal denouncement of religious faith in favor of what is essentially a godless faith based system that I find so disingenuous. INTPc is full of a intelligent high-tech brains and it strikes me that ridiculing "sheep" ought to be a bit beneath them... it's like the intellectual equivalent of cow-tipping.

Nothing is 'beneath' me on this subject. Your own disdain for secularism is like a fog horn blasting beside my ear. I don't subscribe to that farsical, self-righteous moral-highground of condescension-under-pitiful-guise-of-politeness.

My opinions don't exist to inspire warm feelings of my character; they exist to shed light on ridiculous bullshit I see happening around me. That one need like the messenger before they see the truth is not my problem.

Edited Addendum: ...nor does it make my views incorrect.

Fact is:

-The best Christians have is hope and desire that the God of the Bible exists.

-They have no credible evidence, no proof, and therefore, no knowledge he does.

-No knowledge of God's existence means God's morality must be tested on natural basis alone.

-Christian morality lacks cohesive structure, detail, and technological relevency.

-The best Christians can offer on an issue like stem cell research is a handful of nebulous Bible versus. God does not have an opinion on stem cell research because God-practical is a construct of a stone-age society.

-Such a faulty basis for morality cannot be rationally used in a liberal democracy, and indeed it is not.

-Christian morality is only relevent on a personal level, and on the basis of the above is required by all rational people to remain as such.

ptGatsby

15 Jun 2006, 09:17 PM

As a fundie in my former life, I could probably simulate one with a fair degree of accuracy.

Hmm, I hung out with fundies for quite a while. Was kinda dating/seeing/something with one of the girls there. Certainly taught me a lot.

But then, I always liked skirts on women... and here was an entire church that said they couldn't wear pants.

However, it was over when her parents destroyed my Warcraft II cd, and presumably, the evil it held. In my eyes... for some things... there is no forgiveness.

cafe

15 Jun 2006, 09:53 PM

Dammit, I was really hoping we could keep this up.
Sorry. I'm always going to vote pro-life, I suspect, and I don't think gay marriage is a great idea, but I have very mixed feelings on many of the messages of the far right. The gender-role stereotypes bother me. I don't think homosexuals should be prosecuted. I don't think that gay marriage or civil unions should be strong-armed from being made legal. If the majority wants it, then the country should have it.

The majority of legislation legislates somebody or another's morality, but really, the way I see this whole thing is that the church has lost the heart of the country. If people want to see real change, then they need to work to regain that heart. Forcing people to act a certain way whether they want to or not is a sham. Christianity was formed in hostile conditions. Unlike Judaism, it was not meant to be a form of civil government. It is a religion of the heart and it is to be lived and preached, but never forced.

I think the money being spent on lobbying would be better spent helping people. A lot of good could be done. It would be much truer to the message of Christ and it would also have a better chance of winning the country's heart back, which is what these groups truly want, though they may not realize that themselves.

Dom

18 Jun 2006, 09:49 PM

Well, what does 2 Corinthians 10:5 actually say?

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." - NIV

So rather than doing the real work of sorting through biblical scripture to find evidence to back up their assertions, the author relies upon a catch-all verse that puts the stamp of God on his argument. Nice. It's not even internally consistent.

This verse is not set up to give license to christians to go censoring soicety. It's a suggestion, that christians should 'Hold every thought captive'. It's about mental and moral self discipline.

Dom

18 Jun 2006, 09:51 PM

Nothing is 'beneath' me on this subject. Your own disdain for secularism is like a fog horn blasting beside my ear. I don't subscribe to that farsical, self-righteous moral-highground of condescension-under-pitiful-guise-of-politeness.

My opinions don't exist to inspire warm feelings of my character; they exist to shed light on ridiculous bullshit I see happening around me. That one need like the messenger before they see the truth is not my problem.

Edited Addendum: ...nor does it make my views incorrect.

Fact is:

-The best Christians have is hope and desire that the God of the Bible exists.

-They have no credible evidence, no proof, and therefore, no knowledge he does.

-No knowledge of God's existence means God's morality must be tested on natural basis alone.

-Christian morality lacks cohesive structure, detail, and technological relevency.

-The best Christians can offer on an issue like stem cell research is a handful of nebulous Bible versus. God does not have an opinion on stem cell research because God-practical is a construct of a stone-age society.

-Such a faulty basis for morality cannot be rationally used in a liberal democracy, and indeed it is not.

-Christian morality is only relevent on a personal level, and on the basis of the above is required by all rational people to remain as such.

Fact is that CHRISTIAN Morality was only ever suposed tobe relevant on a personal level!

(IMHO)

Zephyrus055

19 Jun 2006, 01:59 AM

mgb

19 Jun 2006, 02:51 AM

Unfortunately, "liberalism" has not provided an adequate alternative to christian ethics and lifestyle. Many people who have experienced our material and live-let-live lifestyle are turning to christianity to ease the meaninglessness of their lives.

Nietzsche was right. Christianity is one level above nihilism, and many backsliders are entering nihilism as they leave christianity.

Christianity at least has some effects for providing cooperation, but liberalism alienates people from each other by encouraging extreme individualism, competition and material aquisition.

I fear that liberalism, combined with the unpragmatic administrative nature of the American government, is only adding fuel to christianity in the US.

I think we need to take an empirical approach to moral theory and design our moral statements so that they produce a desirable quality of cooperation, encourage reduced consumption to moderate levels, and encourage personal excellence over crass hedonism. I know that I may appear to be proposing a solution that sounds dangerously close to social engineering, and I am.

You are putting too much stock in Nietzsche.

Individualism, competition and material aquisition all pre-existed liberalism. As for alienation, it would be better to examine the industrial revolution and modernity itself for the causes of that. In a sense, the Renaissance itself probably did more than anything to alienate people from one another.

You aren't looking at the big picture though. The root cause of all of these problems isn't a dogma or an idea or value, it's people. You can't "fix" them or trick them into believing something and expect it to change the world.

Zephyrus055

19 Jun 2006, 03:10 AM

You are putting too much stock in Nietzsche.
I still say that he is still right on this particular example.

Individualism, competition and material aquisition all pre-existed liberalism.
I'm referring to their prevalence among the masses, not aristocratic and merchant luxury or interest.

As for alienation, it would be better to examine the industrial revolution and modernity itself for the causes of that. In a sense, the Renaissance itself probably did more than anything to alienate people from one another.
I'm not talking about the causes for their conditions but the conditions themselves. I'm talking about liberalism not the causes of it. The causes of liberalism are largely economic, which certaintly have roots in the merchant societies of Italy/Flanders and the Industrial Revolution.

Liberalism is an intellectual response to changing economic conditions of the past.

You aren't looking at the big picture though. The root cause of all of these problems isn't a dogma or an idea or value, it's people. You can't "fix" them or trick them into believing something and expect it to change the world.
People can be easily reprogrammed to the will of a skillful social engineer. In fact, they are already programmed by society, parents and media networks. Only a few people declare themselves intellectually autonomous.

mgb

19 Jun 2006, 04:01 AM

I'm not sure that he is.

I'm not sure your notions about historic peoples are altogether accurate. While, they were definitely more connected to the society in which they lived, I don't think they were any less prone to greediness or competition or the by products of those things. They just had less to be greedy with. And even within say a feudalist society, above the working poor you had landowners and local regents (or whatever) who had risen to power in their area.

I do think that liberalism seeks to treat people as being somewhat equal in potential, which some will often mistake as also meaning ability. In that way, it levels the playing field and does give rise to competition, but can do so without the eventual slip into nihilism you are suggesting. But, the potential for that competition was already there, no matter the social class. So it isn't so much caused by liberalism as it is unleashed by it.

I'd argue that the causes for the conditions are probably just as important as the conditions themselves. By looking at the causes, you can more easily tell if something like liberalism was the right path to follow. Where could things have gone during the Industrial Revolution? I suppose in opposition to liberalism would have been a continuation of some sort of feudalism, just adapted to cities. I suppose if you feel that suppression of the masses is the easiest answer to societies problems, then maybe you'd be right. I doubt however that it is.

I think if suppression, through whichever means, is the easiest way to keep people away from "deadly nihilism" we'd be practicing it already. I mean, we do to some extent, as you've suggested through governance and media, but not everyone can be suppressed. It's in those seeds of idealism that we saw liberalism come to fruition. It's also from there that humanity will again move forward when the time comes. To that end, it's not so easy to socially engineer the populous. I think you might think it is because you've elected one NT to your Students' Union, but there is more to it than that.

I still say that he is still right on this particular example.

I'm referring to their prevalence among the masses, not aristocratic and merchant luxury or interest.

I'm not talking about the causes for their conditions but the conditions themselves. I'm talking about liberalism not the causes of it. The causes of liberalism are largely economic, which certaintly have roots in the merchant societies of Italy/Flanders and the Industrial Revolution.

Liberalism is an intellectual response to changing economic conditions of the past.

People can be easily reprogrammed to the will of a skillful social engineer. In fact, they are already programmed by society, parents and media networks. Only a few people declare themselves intellectually autonomous.