Bush's proclamation ...
About: 50th anniversary of motto, In God We Trust
Bush has done more to erode the principal of separation of church and state than any president in history. Remember the principal "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" engrved in the First Amendment of the Constitution. There are some of us who take that principal seriously. You'd think that all the problems of the Middle East where demigods like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad manipulate people's belief in Islam to preach hate against America would drive home the fallacy of leveraging religious dogma for one's own political ambitions.
And if you don't think this is a real problem read the article below and find out why some one would say ...
And if you don't think this is a real problem read the article below and find out why some one would say ...
Tags
- bush
- politics
- first amendment
- in god we trust
- church and state
- religion
- madrassas
- moral equivalency
- left-rightism
- religious right
- jesus camp
Comments
Mark de LA says
source: ... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
... the words in red do not mean you can't mention God in anything. Furthermore, it DID NOT establish Atheism as the standard of the first ammendment. The founders didn't like the Church of England, but came to establish the colonies for the free exercise of all religions.
Seth says
M 2006-07-29 09:56:59 4044
BTW there is no "separation of Church & State" in the US Constitution beyond that phrase in the first ammendment & all that says is that the US Government can't establish a religion.
Well you are probably correct in that Bush's proclamation is probably not in technical violation of the first amendment. It does, however, serve to erode the principle of separation of church and state. That principal, interperted broadly, says that it is a very bad idea to appeal to religious beliefs to further your own political adgenda. We have what is happening in the Middle East as a prime example of the error of that path. But that is definitely where Bush's coalition with the religious right is going. And that is definitely what demigods of the Middle East have been doing with Islam. Do you not see that comparison? Why is it ok for Bush to do it in America, but the Ayatollah Khamenei not to do it in Iran ? Carried to the extreme will it not have the same disasterous effect here? I say it is time to become aware of this creeping American Theocracy and nip it in the bud. People's religious beliefs should not be manipulated for political advantage PERIOD.
Mark de LA says
M 2006-07-29 09:56:59 4044
BTW there is no "separation of Church & State" in the US Constitution beyond that phrase in the first ammendment & all that says is that the US Government can't establish a religion.
BTW(2), here are some of the thoughts behind the word establish from the etymological dictionary online.
Mark de LA says
Every person, politician & human operates on some set of his/her/it's beliefs & values. Even an Atheist! Even you (whatever you are)! Bush operates on his. Bush declared himself to be a Christian before he was elected (twice!). It is not a surprise to me that he doesn't follow all of your values nor indeed all of mine. At least he is predictable & in integrity, mostly, with his declared set of values.
I think you have been reading too much of 3968 & may have gone over to the dark side. There is no moral equivalence between the United States policies & the theocratic, terrorist behavior of the Islamofascists of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah & Hamas! (except perhaps in YOUR MIND).
Every person, politician & human operates on some set of his/her/it's beliefs & values. Even an Atheist! Even you (whatever you are)! Bush operates on his. Bush declared himself to be a Christian before he was elected (twice!). It is not a surprise to me that he doesn't follow all of your values nor indeed all of mine. At least he is predictable & in integrity, mostly, with his declared set of values.
I think you have been reading too much of 3968 & may have gone over to the dark side. There is no moral equivalence between the United States policies & the theocratic, terrorist behavior of the Islamofascists of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah & Hamas! (except perhaps in YOUR MIND).
Mark de LA says
seth 2006-07-29 12:30:43 4044
M, you have totaly missed the point. Certainly every person has some ethics and values. Most people have some measure of interety to those values; and to some extent that applies even to politicians. That is not the issue here. At issue here is whether it is a good idea for us to allow politicians in this country to leverage people's religious beliefs to gather votes. At issue is whether we want to allow religious leaders to have an iordinate influence on governmental decisions. At issue is whether we want polilicians to have an inordinate influence on religious doctrine. Politicians corrupt religion. Religion corrupts public policy. If you want to discuss this intelligently, you really should study the history of Islam. They have gone quite far down that path. We should learn from that example.
I guess it is you that has missed the point. There is ABSOLUTELY NO danger of a theocracy in America! It is not happening now & hasn't happened. Again you are sucked into 3968. Where you have a great number of poor, uneducated (or brainwashed) people it could happen - just like in pagan & tribal societies. Show me the examples in the USA. A lack of consciousness contributes to the problem as well. Every political party panders to groups be they blacks, jews, Mexicans, Catholics & other religious groups etc. (Remember Algore & the Buddhist temple?),poor, rich - that's the nature of the democracy. You are in America free to vote for the other candidate or vote them all out.
Seth says
M, you have totaly missed the point. Certainly every person has some ethics and values. Most people have some measure of interety to those values; and to some extent that applies even to politicians. That is not the issue here. At issue here is whether it is a good idea for us to allow politicians in this country to leverage people's religious beliefs to gather votes. At issue is whether we want to allow religious leaders to have an iordinate influence on governmental decisions. At issue is whether we want polilicians to have an inordinate influence on religious doctrine. Politicians corrupt religion. Religion corrupts public policy. If you want to discuss this intelligently, you really should study the history of Islam. They have gone quite far down that path. We should learn from that example.
M, you have totaly missed the point. Certainly every person has some ethics and values. Most people have some measure of interety to those values; and to some extent that applies even to politicians. That is not the issue here. At issue here is whether it is a good idea for us to allow politicians in this country to leverage people's religious beliefs to gather votes. At issue is whether we want to allow religious leaders to have an iordinate influence on governmental decisions. At issue is whether we want polilicians to have an inordinate influence on religious doctrine. Politicians corrupt religion. Religion corrupts public policy. If you want to discuss this intelligently, you really should study the history of Islam. They have gone quite far down that path. We should learn from that example.
Mark de LA says
One more thing - in the good old USA we don't think of our religions as having guns & bombs. No teeth in religion except from God. She doesn't need any help!
One more thing - in the good old USA we don't think of our religions as having guns & bombs. No teeth in religion except from God. She doesn't need any help!
Seth says
M 2006-07-30 10:43:04 4044
You seem to be trying to remove one of the constituencies of the country from having an opinion & voice. Ha-Ha, it didn't work.
Nope, got nothing to do with what i am saying. Look the liberal press harping on the creeping influnence of the religious right in this country is nothing new ... nor am i just parroting that here. The principal of separation of church and state is even something that you have supported. So there is no disagreement on that. So what am i saying that is new here ? It is a historical comparason and like all comparasons it is not to be interperted as exact. Here let me expand on it a bit.
Us politicians would be well advised to study the history of Islma. Also Christian religious leaders would also be well advised to study the effect of politicians on the religion of Islam. We do not want that to happen here. Not even a little bit of it. Here is a little taste of that history ...
Us politicians would be well advised to study the history of Islma. Also Christian religious leaders would also be well advised to study the effect of politicians on the religion of Islam. We do not want that to happen here. Not even a little bit of it. Here is a little taste of that history ...
source: from Chapter 2 of The Great Theft see 4043
"The Sharia is God's justice amoung His servants, and His mercy amoung his creatures. It is God's shadow on this earth." ... In this passage, Ibn al-Qayyim is speaking of Shari's not as a technical legal system, but as a symbol, which despite its remarkable diversity and pluralism represents the unified Muslim identity. Because of Shari'a's symbolic role and its ability to appeal to and mobilize popular Muslim sentiment, activist and leaders of puritan movements have found it necessary to exploit Shari'a in order to win significant popular support.
...
... For the many despotic Muslim states, the 1979 Iranian Revolution, in particular, came as a rude awakening that drove home the terrifying realization of the power of Shari'a to mobilize the massess and overthrow powerful secular governments.
...
A more recent example of this phenomenon was when Sadam Hussein, the leader of the zealous secularist Ba'th party, put "Goid Is Great" on the Iraqui flag and plunged into speeches about the duty of jihad in a failed effort to get Iraquis to fight to defend his regime.
...
Leaving aside the unfortunate but understandable confusion about the relationship of Islam to political issues and causes, as far as Islamic though was concerned, the highly impoverishe intelectual climate was ripe for expoitation by various "evangelical" mass movements, two of which were fated to become particularly influential: the Salafiyya (salafis) and the Saudi Arabia-based Wahhabiyya (Wahhabis).
"The Sharia is God's justice amoung His servants, and His mercy amoung his creatures. It is God's shadow on this earth." ... In this passage, Ibn al-Qayyim is speaking of Shari's not as a technical legal system, but as a symbol, which despite its remarkable diversity and pluralism represents the unified Muslim identity. Because of Shari'a's symbolic role and its ability to appeal to and mobilize popular Muslim sentiment, activist and leaders of puritan movements have found it necessary to exploit Shari'a in order to win significant popular support.
...
... For the many despotic Muslim states, the 1979 Iranian Revolution, in particular, came as a rude awakening that drove home the terrifying realization of the power of Shari'a to mobilize the massess and overthrow powerful secular governments.
...
A more recent example of this phenomenon was when Sadam Hussein, the leader of the zealous secularist Ba'th party, put "Goid Is Great" on the Iraqui flag and plunged into speeches about the duty of jihad in a failed effort to get Iraquis to fight to defend his regime.
...
Leaving aside the unfortunate but understandable confusion about the relationship of Islam to political issues and causes, as far as Islamic though was concerned, the highly impoverishe intelectual climate was ripe for expoitation by various "evangelical" mass movements, two of which were fated to become particularly influential: the Salafiyya (salafis) and the Saudi Arabia-based Wahhabiyya (Wahhabis).
You really should read the whole book to get a better picture ... it is not a pretty one. One of the challenges of faith based knowledge is that texts ascribed to God need human interpertation. So that anyone with the power to influence the massess and who has been annointed as the spokesman of God can (and will) interpert them to his political advantage. There is a feedback between political power and faith based dogma. Each corrupts the other. Islam has gone way down that path. We can see its effects. Let us not make the same mistakes here in America.
Seth says
M 2006-07-30 09:49:42 4044
Not an example of a theocracy. Apparently Congress could NOT override the veto so there is obviously a difference of opinion - doesnt mean a theocracy is about to happen. The theocracy is in your mind there.
... not just my mind, try google american theocracy. Anyway i'm not jumping to the extreme of saying that it is here now ... read again what i did say in the paragraph above. Right now this is a distrubing trend nothing more. Bush's veto of the stem cell research bill is an example of that disturbing trend. Of course what is so outrageously silly about his veto is that these cells are scheduled for demolition in any case. So now, instead of using those cells to support research to heal people, they will be killed in an incinerator. And that stupidity happens because Bush wants the support of the religious right. That is an example of religious dogma manipulating public policy. I'll bet if we keep our eyes open we will see the other end of the problem too ... politicians manipulating religious dogma to further their power adgendas. If you read enough Falwell you will probably find a lot of that ... sorry i can't stomach reading him.
And btw, you keep harping on my 3968 but that is just you not heeding 4043
.
And btw, you keep harping on my 3968 but that is just you not heeding 4043
.
Mark de LA says
source: ... I guess it is you that has missed the point. There is ABSOLUTELY NO
danger of a theocracy in America! It is not happening now & hasn't
happened. Again you are sucked into [item 3968].
Where you have a great number of poor, uneducated (or brainwashed)
people it could happen - just like in pagan & tribal societies. Show me the examples in the USA.
A lack of consciousness contributes to the problem as well. Every
political party panders to groups be they blacks, jews, Mexicans,
Catholics & other religious groups etc. (Remember Algore & the
Buddhist temple?),poor, rich - that's the nature of the democracy. You
are in America free to vote for the other candidate or vote them all
out.
... I repeat for emphasis. Just because you hate W & he is a Christian doesn't mean the Christians are taking over (or the so-called religious right). I have previously spoken here & given my opinion that abortion is none of the government's business. I want the president to follow his moral values. It is much better than a president like Clinton who followed his immoral values!
You seem to be trying to remove one of the constituencies of the country from having an opinion & voice. Ha-Ha, it didn't work.
You seem to be trying to remove one of the constituencies of the country from having an opinion & voice. Ha-Ha, it didn't work.
Mark de LA says
Your quotes from 3968 may be true for Islam but NOT true for the religious polyglot of the United States. Islam & Christianity & possibly even Judaism were oral traditions for hundreds of years before ever being committed to writing. Thus the interpretation & what was passed on was dependent upon the people who did it. We have all played the game of passing a message around the room to be surprised by what it sounds like when it returns to us from around a circle. Islam to a greater extent than Christianity has emphasized the oral tradition beyond the invention of writing. (See the wikipedia) . I doubt that anyone in the US identifies with what you describe outside of perhaps Islamists. Those I once knew treated their religion about the same as most Christians do today - something practiced when needed not an absolute ruling principle of their lives. Religion is but one of the many constituencies which influence politics & government. politic (adj.)
1427, from M.Fr. politique (14c.) "political," from L. politicus "of citizens or the state, civil, civic," from Gk. politikos "of citizens or the state," from polites "citizen," from polis "city" (see policy (1)). Replaced in most adj. senses by political (1551). The verb meaning "to engage in political activity" is first recorded 1917, a back-formation from politics.
What do you expect in in politics but a reflection of it's citizens. Outside of a mass rending of the veil in which God appears for all the people of this country I suspect that there is no danger in the way things in politics work today vis-a-vis religion.
Your quotes from 3968 may be true for Islam but NOT true for the religious polyglot of the United States. Islam & Christianity & possibly even Judaism were oral traditions for hundreds of years before ever being committed to writing. Thus the interpretation & what was passed on was dependent upon the people who did it. We have all played the game of passing a message around the room to be surprised by what it sounds like when it returns to us from around a circle. Islam to a greater extent than Christianity has emphasized the oral tradition beyond the invention of writing. (See the wikipedia) . I doubt that anyone in the US identifies with what you describe outside of perhaps Islamists. Those I once knew treated their religion about the same as most Christians do today - something practiced when needed not an absolute ruling principle of their lives. Religion is but one of the many constituencies which influence politics & government. politic (adj.)
1427, from M.Fr. politique (14c.) "political," from L. politicus "of citizens or the state, civil, civic," from Gk. politikos "of citizens or the state," from polites "citizen," from polis "city" (see policy (1)). Replaced in most adj. senses by political (1551). The verb meaning "to engage in political activity" is first recorded 1917, a back-formation from politics.What do you expect in in politics but a reflection of it's citizens. Outside of a mass rending of the veil in which God appears for all the people of this country I suspect that there is no danger in the way things in politics work today vis-a-vis religion.
Mark de LA says
seth 2006-07-30 12:24:47 4044
... 
.. and just why do you see Americans and Christians being immune to this ?
.. and just why do you see Americans and Christians being immune to this ?source: quoted from myself above
One of the challenges of faith based knowledge is that texts ascribed to God need human interpertation. So that anyone with the power to influence the massess and who has been annointed as the spokesman of God can (and will) interpert them to his political advantage. There is a feedback between political power and faith based dogma. Each corrupts the other.
One of the challenges of faith based knowledge is that texts ascribed to God need human interpertation. So that anyone with the power to influence the massess and who has been annointed as the spokesman of God can (and will) interpert them to his political advantage. There is a feedback between political power and faith based dogma. Each corrupts the other.
Is it because we are God's chosen people?
Well,
- It's not happening.
- So far we have not elected a Bishop or any clergy to the presidency.
- The Jews are the chosen people (for what I don't know - maybe it was to wander around for millenia without a peaceful country to live in)
- "There is a feedback between political power and faith based dogma" is disputable as being any stronger than any other feedback between elements of power.
- I might worry if we were all one religion, but we are not & the movement in the US is more toward secularism. I worry more about secularism without a moral compass.
- Even 'hoi polloi get most of the first ammendment to the US Constitution.
- Most people I know that do go to church, temple or mosque are inspired for a short time & then go back to doing what they were going to do anyway.
Seth says
... .. and just why do you see Americans and Christians being immune to this ?
...
.. and just why do you see Americans and Christians being immune to this ?source: quoted from myself above
One of the challenges of faith based knowledge is that texts ascribed to God need human interpertation. So that anyone with the power to influence the massess and who has been annointed as the spokesman of God can (and will) interpert them to his political advantage. There is a feedback between political power and faith based dogma. Each corrupts the other.
One of the challenges of faith based knowledge is that texts ascribed to God need human interpertation. So that anyone with the power to influence the massess and who has been annointed as the spokesman of God can (and will) interpert them to his political advantage. There is a feedback between political power and faith based dogma. Each corrupts the other.
Is it because we are God's chosen people?
Seth says
More reaction to Rev Boyd's sermon here.
More reaction to Rev Boyd's sermon here.
Mark de LA says
Hmmm...it took 185 years to elect a Catholic to the presidency for fear, in the later years, that whoever that might be might would take orders from the Pope. Then when JFK became president; he got in the middle of a war anyway - remember Viet Nam ? He also took pre-emptive action against Cuba - a blockade is an act of war!
Hmmm...it took 185 years to elect a Catholic to the presidency for fear, in the later years, that whoever that might be might would take orders from the Pope. Then when JFK became president; he got in the middle of a war anyway - remember Viet Nam ? He also took pre-emptive action against Cuba - a blockade is an act of war!
Mark de LA says
If you can't tell the difference between terrorists & Christian schools then maybe you should go back to school. Nobody in any Christian school is going to tell little kids that strapping bombs on their back is what God wants them to do. Your Bush hatred , anti-religiosity & inability to see this difference is beginning to reduce your credibility on the anti-war front to ZERO!. You seem to exhibit just more crocodile tears for your own partisan confusion. Or is it still Stockholm syndrome ? You don't seem peaceful at all!
If you can't tell the difference between terrorists & Christian schools then maybe you should go back to school. Nobody in any Christian school is going to tell little kids that strapping bombs on their back is what God wants them to do. Your Bush hatred , anti-religiosity & inability to see this difference is beginning to reduce your credibility on the anti-war front to ZERO!. You seem to exhibit just more crocodile tears for your own partisan confusion. Or is it still Stockholm syndrome ? You don't seem peaceful at all!
Mark de LA says
I'll give it a yawn. It was pretty obvious after the first few lines and rather tedious after that.
It was pretty obvious after the first few lines and rather tedious after that.Huber's self description: Philosophically I'm an atheist and a humanist with slight pantheistic
tendencies. I'm socially very progressive, but politically more
centrist with some libertarian leanings
Seth says
Here is an example from Jerry Falwell of where Bush's faith-based initiatives are going ...
Here is an example from Jerry Falwell of where Bush's faith-based initiatives are going ...
source: Deep Concerns, Falwell hopes Islam can be excluded
I think the Moslem faith teaches hate. I think there
I think the Moslem faith teaches hate. I think there
Seth says
M 2006-08-07 09:31:29 4044
Do the Christian camps preach & brainwash HATE ? The madrases do. Is your moral equivalency showing?
Well what do you use for a discriminator ... perhaps the word Christian in the name of the group? There is a long history of Christian cults using brainwashing techniques. Perhaps you have forgotten about Jones Town and the Moonies, but i have not. This sure sounds like another cult to me. But that is nothing new. What is new is that this one is organized to support the political adgenda of Christian Conservitives.
source: American Madrassas
In another scene a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush, with his trademark smirking smile, is brought out and the children are urged to identify
In another scene a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush, with his trademark smirking smile, is brought out and the children are urged to identify
Mark de LA says
Just because they use the name Christ does not make them Christian. See Matthew 7, 15-20
source: ...
| 15 |
Seth says
M 2006-08-07 11:00:52 4044 Didn't say i couldnt tell the difference. Thank God this is only one small example of something in it's infancy ... something that grew to be a terrible thing in the Muslim world. If enough parents become aware of the possiblity of this kind of indoctronation in Christian camps they will be in a position to investigate and exercise selective spending. Would you send your daughter to Jesus Camp? What is still great about America is that the government is pretty much prohibited via the First Amemdment from pushing this kind of shit on an unsuspecting populus. That was not the case in Iran when the Ayatollah Khomeini juiced up the people on combining church and state. The religious right is bad news for American politics. If the American people are duped into support those people, we will not need to wait very long before the WFBs and the Coulters will be leading Christian youths into the disaster of fighting a religious war against Islam. I want no part to it. If you can't tell the difference between terrorists & Christian schools ...
Mark de LA says I think your religious intolerance is showing again! Nobody in America forces you or anyone else to go to any religious camp. It's quite different in the Middle East.Too bad that the Church of the Far left Liberal Mud Puddle is the only religion in your basket. See Also
|