Brother Christians - Awake!

[alkemical]

http://www.yourchristianpresident.com/

How much longer will Christians make excuses for President Bush's blatantly anti-Christian policies and personal behavior? Is it simply the 'R' next to his political persuasion that causes Christians to cast a blind eye? The fact is that Bush's policies are virtually identical to that of his predecessor, yet Bush is showered with praise while Clinton is continually demonized. Clearly it is not Bush's neo-conservative agenda nor exemplary leadership, but solely his profession of faith which has gained him the admiration of the Christian community.



The single most reason I hear from family and friends for their support of Bush is that he is a Christian. The irony is that Clinton likewise portrayed himself as Christian, and yet he was despised by most fundamental bible-thumpers. So what exactly makes Bush come across as more believable? The answer, I believe, is that Bush is indeed a religious man, but what the Christian community as a whole fails to comprehend is that Bush's version of Christianity is far from "fundamental."



To those who have ears to hear, Bush's worldly deeds speak louder than his words:



During his inauguration, Bush put his left hand upon the Bible and took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States - to which he voluntarily added the phrase "so help me God." Yet since his initial swearing-in, the Constitution has been gutted and violated it almost every conceivable manner. From Free-speech Zones to warrant-less searches to the loss of national sovereignty, Bush has systematically dismantled the very document he swore an oath before God to protect. There is even talk of Bush suspending the Constitution altogether if there us another terrorist attack.


President Bush's Department of Homeland Security is the biggest federal power grab since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt. This new department is more dangerous to the liberty of the American people than any threat of terrorism. Centralizing military and law enforcement power in the executive branch is the very definition of a Police State! Additionally, in December of 2004, Bush signed an Intelligence Bill which, in effect, creates a National ID card. Christians have always viewed such legislation as a forerunner of a cashless society and the Mark of the Beast!


Bush claims that the war in Iraq was necessary to prevent further terrorism, nevertheless our borders remain wide-open. While there remain many unanswered questions about September 11th and the subsequent absence of WMDs in Iraq, Bush has consistently objected to independent investigations of both; we are simply supposed to believe that our intelligent agencies are inept. Perhaps Saddam Hussein was a bad man and maybe he did use chemical weapons against his own people, but our government did the same thing when it gassed women and children at a church in Waco, Texas. In that abhorent instance, the military was illegally utilized against the Posse Comitatus Act - a law which strictly forbids the use of the American Military against its own citizens. A different administration - yes, but President Bush never held the previous administration responsible; and now, even worse, Bush supports the dismantling of the Posse Comitatus Act.


President Bush is the biggest spender in the history of the republic - not just on military expenditures, but likewise on social programs. Besides being unconstitutional, socialism is unbiblical! God's word commands us to "Love thy neighbor as yourself," which nullifies favoritism and/or discrimination. Socialism boils down to government's forcible extraction of assets from the earners for the purpose of redistribution among non-earners (or to whom ever government officials feel can be persuaded to return the favor via the ballot-box). It should now be apparent that "Compassionate conservatism" is simply the neoconservative buzz-word for their brand of socialism. True compassion is defined as the free-exercise of giving; either of one's time, knowledge, or resources to man or animal in need. Monies paid under duress - even for a lofty purpose - is not compassion; it is theft. It matters not that it is by decree of government nor by will of the majority, stealing is always a violation of God's Law!

[epicSocialism4tw]

http://www.yourchristianpresident.com/

How much longer will Christians make excuses for President Bush's blatantly anti-Christian policies and personal behavior? Is it simply the 'R' next to his political persuasion that causes Christians to cast a blind eye? The fact is that Bush's policies are virtually identical to that of his predecessor, yet Bush is showered with praise while Clinton is continually demonized. Clearly it is not Bush's neo-conservative agenda nor exemplary leadership, but solely his profession of faith which has gained him the admiration of the Christian community.



The single most reason I hear from family and friends for their support of Bush is that he is a Christian. The irony is that Clinton likewise portrayed himself as Christian, and yet he was despised by most fundamental bible-thumpers. So what exactly makes Bush come across as more believable? The answer, I believe, is that Bush is indeed a religious man, but what the Christian community as a whole fails to comprehend is that Bush's version of Christianity is far from "fundamental."



To those who have ears to hear, Bush's worldly deeds speak louder than his words:



During his inauguration, Bush put his left hand upon the Bible and took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States - to which he voluntarily added the phrase "so help me God." Yet since his initial swearing-in, the Constitution has been gutted and violated it almost every conceivable manner. From Free-speech Zones to warrant-less searches to the loss of national sovereignty, Bush has systematically dismantled the very document he swore an oath before God to protect. There is even talk of Bush suspending the Constitution altogether if there us another terrorist attack.


President Bush's Department of Homeland Security is the biggest federal power grab since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt. This new department is more dangerous to the liberty of the American people than any threat of terrorism. Centralizing military and law enforcement power in the executive branch is the very definition of a Police State! Additionally, in December of 2004, Bush signed an Intelligence Bill which, in effect, creates a National ID card. Christians have always viewed such legislation as a forerunner of a cashless society and the Mark of the Beast!


Bush claims that the war in Iraq was necessary to prevent further terrorism, nevertheless our borders remain wide-open. While there remain many unanswered questions about September 11th and the subsequent absence of WMDs in Iraq, Bush has consistently objected to independent investigations of both; we are simply supposed to believe that our intelligent agencies are inept. Perhaps Saddam Hussein was a bad man and maybe he did use chemical weapons against his own people, but our government did the same thing when it gassed women and children at a church in Waco, Texas. In that abhorent instance, the military was illegally utilized against the Posse Comitatus Act - a law which strictly forbids the use of the American Military against its own citizens. A different administration - yes, but President Bush never held the previous administration responsible; and now, even worse, Bush supports the dismantling of the Posse Comitatus Act.


President Bush is the biggest spender in the history of the republic - not just on military expenditures, but likewise on social programs. Besides being unconstitutional, socialism is unbiblical! God's word commands us to "Love thy neighbor as yourself," which nullifies favoritism and/or discrimination. Socialism boils down to government's forcible extraction of assets from the earners for the purpose of redistribution among non-earners (or to whom ever government officials feel can be persuaded to return the favor via the ballot-box). It should now be apparent that "Compassionate conservatism" is simply the neoconservative buzz-word for their brand of socialism. True compassion is defined as the free-exercise of giving; either of one's time, knowledge, or resources to man or animal in need. Monies paid under duress - even for a lofty purpose - is not compassion; it is theft. It matters not that it is by decree of government nor by will of the majority, stealing is always a violation of God's Law!

I am a Christian and maybe I can explain a little of what is going on in theis issue. Republicans (especially G. W. Bush) have been the only party to even address the Chrisian in recent years. There is evidence in his life of the influence of God, and he openly discusses it. He is basically saying publicly for Christians to feel welcome in the political process because their desires for government are worthy of discussion. That political play to Christians and the actual formation of policy are two different things.

I for one am upset with his policy decisions. It seems as though he continues to pad the rich by taking from the poor with his border policy and typical republican pro-business stance on many issues. He has not stopped the outsourcing of white collar jobs, which to me shows many problems also. He has not gotten the faith based initiative off of the ground either. there are many things that I as a Christian am uncomfortable with, but there was simply no other option. Kerry never once took a firm stand on any issue and showed zero integrity in anything. He talked in circles.

The choice of Bush was for the lesser of two evils. Bush is not our 'King David', I don't think that we'll ever have anything like him in America.

[alkemical]

I am a Christian and maybe I can explain a little of what is going on in theis issue. Republicans (especially G. W. Bush) have been the only party to even address the Chrisian in recent years. There is evidence in his life of the influence of God, and he openly discusses it. He is basically saying publicly for Christians to feel welcome in the political process because their desires for government are worthy of discussion. That political play to Christians and the actual formation of policy are two different things.

I for one am upset with his policy decisions. It seems as though he continues to pad the rich by taking from the poor with his border policy and typical republican pro-business stance on many issues. He has not stopped the outsourcing of white collar jobs, which to me shows many problems also. He has not gotten the faith based initiative off of the ground either. there are many things that I as a Christian am uncomfortable with, but there was simply no other option. Kerry never once took a firm stand on any issue and showed zero integrity in anything. He talked in circles.

The choice of Bush was for the lesser of two evils. Bush is not our 'King David', I don't think that we'll ever have anything like him in America.


I was born a prodestant - and i often get mad at bush for pushing things that i deem aren't republican and aren't in fact christian. I don't have a problem with christians at all. I hate though, when things are forced on me and i get someone all preachy preachy in my face.

To me, you can't be a politician and a man of faith.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How much longer will Christians make excuses for President Bush's blatantly anti-Christian policies and personal behavior?

As long as Smirk continues to package death, destruction, hatred, and bigotry as "freedom," "democracy," "love," etc, these "Christians" will worship the ground he walks on.

These modern-day Phaisees and socioeconomic Darwinians love Smirk because bush is a reflection of themselves and their core values/attitudes.

Just witness the religio-crazies (the same nutjobs who, as evidenced by Bush's interrupted vacation and Congress' intervention, weild immense power in GOP politics) gathered outside the Schiavo hospice:

"Always err on the side of life - or we'll kill you!"

Same schizophrenic, forked-tongued message we're used to hearing from Bush.

[SoCalBronco]

LABF, I am surprised that you didnt take issue with the line in that article that said Bush's policies are pretty much the same as his predecessor.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF, I am surprised that you didnt take issue with the line in that article that said Bush's policies are pretty much the same as his predecessor.

I guess I was too busy laughing at the absurdity of such a claim. :)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Juan Cole Nails the Fundies to the Cross

It isn't just Michael Schiavo -- even George W. Bush has drawn the wrath of American evangelicals. In February 2002, the president and Laura Bush visited a Shinto shrine in Japan, to which they showed respect with a bow. They were immediately denounced by evangelical organizations for having "worshipped the idol." To listen to the anguished cries of disbelief from Bush's Christian base, you would have thought he had met the same fate as Harrison Ford in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," where Indie was hypnotized by the evil rajah into worshipping the pernicious Hindu idol of the thugees.

The reason for the evangelicals' frenzy is the first two commandments of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), said to have been given to Moses on Mount Sinai by God. The first says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The second says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..." George and Laura's respectful nod to the spirits in the Meiji Shrine violated those precepts in the eyes of true believers.

Both the reelection of George Bush and the Schiavo travesty have heightened the sense that the religious right in the United States is all-powerful. Reading the press, you get the impression that almost all Americans are devout Christians, people who believe in a literal heaven and hell and spend their idle moments devouring the "Left Behind" novels about the end of the world. This isn't true -- and it's getting less true all the time. While evangelical Christians are a significant political force, they are probably only a fifth of the country, and not all of them are politically conservative: Only 14 percent of voters in an exit poll for the presidential elections in 2000 characterized themselves as part of the "Christian right." In fact, polls show that the United States is becoming less religious. Only about 60 percent of Americans say religion is important in their lives. The United States is still a predominantly Christian country, but it is no longer an overwhelmingly Christian one. And more and more Americans are either non-religious, unchurched or subscribe to non-Christian religions.

The public relations fiasco that attended the Republican Party's cynical attempt to play the religion card in the tragic case of the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo suggests that the religious right has jumped the shark. (This phrase refers to the point at which a popular television series does something weird and over-the-top and then goes into a ratings spiral.) Still, it has not given up exploiting God for political gain, as demonstrated by the widespread movement among American evangelicals to place the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Secular analysts cast this struggle as one between liberal and conservative principles. There is another conflict going on here, however, between the new multicultural America of many religions (or none), and the traditionally Christian-dominated country that is fading away at the beginning of the 21st century.

In 2001, Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama had a massive two-ton granite monument bearing the Ten Commandments wheeled into the state Supreme Court building. The Southern Poverty Law Center and other organizations sued to have it removed, on the grounds that its installation in this public building constituted a state endorsement of a particular religion.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This archaic phrase is now difficult to understand. In colonial times, each of the 13 colonies had an "established" religion, which was officially endorsed by the government and imposed on citizens. In Anglican Virginia, ship captains who brought Quakers into the state were fined, and dissidents were tried for heresy. The Bill of Rights was intended to ensure that the federal government of the new United States did not "establish" (that is, adopt as official and obligatory) any particular religion.

(So much for the fundie-rightards' contention that the removal of Moore's butt-ugly monument constituted an infringement of THEIR freedom of religion! Rolling Eyes)

The courts ruled against Moore, but he refused to obey them, declining to mothball the monument to the Ten Commandments. A special judicial court removed Moore from his position as chief justice late in 2003. Moore complained to CNN, "Without acknowledgement of God, we have no justice system, according to the Constitution. And that, I'm sworn to uphold." Rolling Eyes

(Oh, boo f*cking hoo.)

But fewer and fewer Americans are interested in Moore's God. Laughing

Since 2003, the movement to display the Ten Commandments on government property has spread faster than SARS on an Asian chicken farm. One Indiana county cleverly displayed the Decalogue as a historical document alongside other such documents, and on March 29 of this year the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its right to do so. The day before, the Mississippi Senate had voted to display the Ten Commandments in all public buildings.

The Moore case has been taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the groups that filed a "friend of the court" brief against the Ten Commandments monument was the Hindu American Foundation, along with Buddhists and Jains.

How significant is this ranging of American non-Christians against the Decalogue? The 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, discovered an America that is changing rapidly with regard to religion. In the 11 years since the first such poll (done in 1990), the number of Americans who considered themselves to have no religion increased from 8 percent to 14 percent. In real terms, these open unbelievers increased from 14 million to nearly 30 million, as extrapolated from the polls. In addition, the proportion of Americans who identified with a specific religion fell from 90 percent to 81 percent.

Despite all the thundering by the Revs. Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell about the evils of secular humanism, then, it is making rapid inroads in American society. Worse for them, the percentage of Americans who say they are "Christian" fell from 86 in 1990 to only 77 in 2001. Laughing

(So much for that "America is a Christian country" BS!)

The elephant-headed god Ganesha is a favorite of Hindu worshippers, especially in western India. Ganesha has come to America, too. If you visit the Web page of the Bharatiya Temple in Troy, Mich., you will find a hyperlink to the left marked "Images." In Old Testament language, it might as well say "graven images." A statuette of Ganesha is displayed there. Asian and other non-Christian religions (Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and so forth) still do not make up more than about 4 percent of the American population, but their adherents grew from about 5 million to over 7 million between 1990 and 2001 in the SUNY poll (which probably undercounts the smaller groups). As the Asian population grows in the United States, the number of Buddhists and Muslims will increase significantly. The United States adds a million immigrants a year, many of them from Asia.

Although American Muslims agree with the precepts enshrined in the Ten Commandments, they are fully aware that the move to post it in public buildings is designed to bolster the Christian right in an exclusivist way, and so they have largely made common cause with American Hindus against it.

The friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Hindus and others notes, "To members of non-Judeo-Christian religions, the Ten Commandments do not merely recite non-controversial ethical maxims; several Commandments (e.g., the first, second and third) address the forms and objects of religious worship." Underlining that there are nearly a million Hindus in the United States, and some 700 Hindu temples, the brief says, "Nor can Hindus accept the First Commandment's prohibition against 'graven images.' The use of murtis (sacred representations of God in any of God's various forms) is central to the practice of the religion for virtually all Hindus." The government-sponsored posting of the Ten Commandments implies a U.S. government preference for a theology that Hindus cannot accept. As for the country's 3 million Buddhists, the brief is even more blunt: "The conception of God, or the notion of worshipping creator gods, is considered an obstacle to the enlightenment sought by Buddhists." Twisted Evil

Government endorsement of any particular religion's conception of God is also an obstacle to the American dream, of a society where the state is neutral with regard to theology. The founding fathers signed into law a 1797 treaty with Tripoli (now Libya), which declares that "...the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and adds that "it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]." The idea of the United States government as religiously neutral was linked in this treaty with the notion of peace among nations. The treaty adds, "it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries..."

More than 200 years later, all the progress achieved in the realm of religious tolerance by the first generation of Americans is in danger of being wiped out by ignorant fanatics who are not good enough to shine their shoes. That danger arises even as the number of non-Christians has risen to record highs. The irony is that the true iconoclasts throughout Christian history would have recognized Judge Moore's two-ton behemoth for what it is: a graven idol.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/04/01/non_christian/print.html

[epicSocialism4tw]

Juan Cole Nails the Fundies to the Cross

It isn't just Michael Schiavo -- even George W. Bush has drawn the wrath of American evangelicals. In February 2002, the president and Laura Bush visited a Shinto shrine in Japan, to which they showed respect with a bow. They were immediately denounced by evangelical organizations for having "worshipped the idol." To listen to the anguished cries of disbelief from Bush's Christian base, you would have thought he had met the same fate as Harrison Ford in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," where Indie was hypnotized by the evil rajah into worshipping the pernicious Hindu idol of the thugees.

The reason for the evangelicals' frenzy is the first two commandments of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), said to have been given to Moses on Mount Sinai by God. The first says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The second says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..." George and Laura's respectful nod to the spirits in the Meiji Shrine violated those precepts in the eyes of true believers.

Both the reelection of George Bush and the Schiavo travesty have heightened the sense that the religious right in the United States is all-powerful. Reading the press, you get the impression that almost all Americans are devout Christians, people who believe in a literal heaven and hell and spend their idle moments devouring the "Left Behind" novels about the end of the world. This isn't true -- and it's getting less true all the time. While evangelical Christians are a significant political force, they are probably only a fifth of the country, and not all of them are politically conservative: Only 14 percent of voters in an exit poll for the presidential elections in 2000 characterized themselves as part of the "Christian right." In fact, polls show that the United States is becoming less religious. Only about 60 percent of Americans say religion is important in their lives. The United States is still a predominantly Christian country, but it is no longer an overwhelmingly Christian one. And more and more Americans are either non-religious, unchurched or subscribe to non-Christian religions.

The public relations fiasco that attended the Republican Party's cynical attempt to play the religion card in the tragic case of the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo suggests that the religious right has jumped the shark. (This phrase refers to the point at which a popular television series does something weird and over-the-top and then goes into a ratings spiral.) Still, it has not given up exploiting God for political gain, as demonstrated by the widespread movement among American evangelicals to place the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Secular analysts cast this struggle as one between liberal and conservative principles. There is another conflict going on here, however, between the new multicultural America of many religions (or none), and the traditionally Christian-dominated country that is fading away at the beginning of the 21st century.

In 2001, Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama had a massive two-ton granite monument bearing the Ten Commandments wheeled into the state Supreme Court building. The Southern Poverty Law Center and other organizations sued to have it removed, on the grounds that its installation in this public building constituted a state endorsement of a particular religion.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This archaic phrase is now difficult to understand. In colonial times, each of the 13 colonies had an "established" religion, which was officially endorsed by the government and imposed on citizens. In Anglican Virginia, ship captains who brought Quakers into the state were fined, and dissidents were tried for heresy. The Bill of Rights was intended to ensure that the federal government of the new United States did not "establish" (that is, adopt as official and obligatory) any particular religion.

(So much for the fundie-rightards' contention that the removal of Moore's butt-ugly monument constituted an infringement of THEIR freedom of religion! Rolling Eyes)

The courts ruled against Moore, but he refused to obey them, declining to mothball the monument to the Ten Commandments. A special judicial court removed Moore from his position as chief justice late in 2003. Moore complained to CNN, "Without acknowledgement of God, we have no justice system, according to the Constitution. And that, I'm sworn to uphold." Rolling Eyes

(Oh, boo f*cking hoo.)

But fewer and fewer Americans are interested in Moore's God. Laughing

Since 2003, the movement to display the Ten Commandments on government property has spread faster than SARS on an Asian chicken farm. One Indiana county cleverly displayed the Decalogue as a historical document alongside other such documents, and on March 29 of this year the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its right to do so. The day before, the Mississippi Senate had voted to display the Ten Commandments in all public buildings.

The Moore case has been taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the groups that filed a "friend of the court" brief against the Ten Commandments monument was the Hindu American Foundation, along with Buddhists and Jains.

How significant is this ranging of American non-Christians against the Decalogue? The 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, discovered an America that is changing rapidly with regard to religion. In the 11 years since the first such poll (done in 1990), the number of Americans who considered themselves to have no religion increased from 8 percent to 14 percent. In real terms, these open unbelievers increased from 14 million to nearly 30 million, as extrapolated from the polls. In addition, the proportion of Americans who identified with a specific religion fell from 90 percent to 81 percent.

Despite all the thundering by the Revs. Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell about the evils of secular humanism, then, it is making rapid inroads in American society. Worse for them, the percentage of Americans who say they are "Christian" fell from 86 in 1990 to only 77 in 2001. Laughing

(So much for that "America is a Christian country" BS!)

The elephant-headed god Ganesha is a favorite of Hindu worshippers, especially in western India. Ganesha has come to America, too. If you visit the Web page of the Bharatiya Temple in Troy, Mich., you will find a hyperlink to the left marked "Images." In Old Testament language, it might as well say "graven images." A statuette of Ganesha is displayed there. Asian and other non-Christian religions (Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and so forth) still do not make up more than about 4 percent of the American population, but their adherents grew from about 5 million to over 7 million between 1990 and 2001 in the SUNY poll (which probably undercounts the smaller groups). As the Asian population grows in the United States, the number of Buddhists and Muslims will increase significantly. The United States adds a million immigrants a year, many of them from Asia.

Although American Muslims agree with the precepts enshrined in the Ten Commandments, they are fully aware that the move to post it in public buildings is designed to bolster the Christian right in an exclusivist way, and so they have largely made common cause with American Hindus against it.

The friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Hindus and others notes, "To members of non-Judeo-Christian religions, the Ten Commandments do not merely recite non-controversial ethical maxims; several Commandments (e.g., the first, second and third) address the forms and objects of religious worship." Underlining that there are nearly a million Hindus in the United States, and some 700 Hindu temples, the brief says, "Nor can Hindus accept the First Commandment's prohibition against 'graven images.' The use of murtis (sacred representations of God in any of God's various forms) is central to the practice of the religion for virtually all Hindus." The government-sponsored posting of the Ten Commandments implies a U.S. government preference for a theology that Hindus cannot accept. As for the country's 3 million Buddhists, the brief is even more blunt: "The conception of God, or the notion of worshipping creator gods, is considered an obstacle to the enlightenment sought by Buddhists." Twisted Evil

Government endorsement of any particular religion's conception of God is also an obstacle to the American dream, of a society where the state is neutral with regard to theology. The founding fathers signed into law a 1797 treaty with Tripoli (now Libya), which declares that "...the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and adds that "it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]." The idea of the United States government as religiously neutral was linked in this treaty with the notion of peace among nations. The treaty adds, "it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries..."

More than 200 years later, all the progress achieved in the realm of religious tolerance by the first generation of Americans is in danger of being wiped out by ignorant fanatics who are not good enough to shine their shoes. That danger arises even as the number of non-Christians has risen to record highs. The irony is that the true iconoclasts throughout Christian history would have recognized Judge Moore's two-ton behemoth for what it is: a graven idol.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/04/01/non_christian/print.html

:nono: this dude is spewing some serious propaganda. Whoever whipped themselves into a fanaticized fury enough to disregard history and any legit sources must be a serious academic.

Posting this guys whiny speculative rant does nothing to legitimately promote or support your secular humanism.

You have an agenda. Christians have an agenda. Welcome to the real world. How about respecting the roots of the american legal system and much of the framers' philosophy (which was drawn from protestant Christianity).

You guys are rediculous. What benefit does secular humanism give you? A false sense of intellectual superiority to rest your weary head on when the forces of the universe deliver you an unfortunate random event?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

:nono: this dude is spewing some serious propaganda. Whoever whipped themselves into a fanaticized fury enough to disregard history and any legit sources must be a serious academic.

Um, actually, Juan Cole is a Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the History Department of the University of Michigan.

(But don't let this inconvenient fact stop you from tippling the faith-based Kool-Aid.)

Posting this guys whiny speculative rant does nothing to legitimately promote or support your secular humanism.

Translation:

"I can't really argue the truth or falsehood of the author's claims, so I'll just apply a label like "speculative rant" and declare another imaginary, didn't-win-nothin' victory."

BTW, why would you assume I'm a "secular humanist?" Moreover, why do you suggest that "Christian" and "secular humanist" are the only two possibilities where religion is concerned?

You have an agenda. Christians have an agenda.

It would be more accurate to say that "Christian" is little more than a tired, shopworn brand name that has been co-opted by a gazillion churches, groups, and individuals for the purpose of rationalizing and furthering their agendas.

How about respecting the roots of the american legal system and much of the framers' philosophy...

How about respecting the framers' stipulation re: the seperation of church and state?

... (which was drawn from protestant Christianity).

"Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies."

--Thomas Jefferson

"What has been the fruits of Christianity? ...Superstition, bigotry and persecution."

--James Madison, 4th president of the U.S.

"Once there was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled.
This time is called the Dark Ages. The clergy believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against any form of tyranny known to the mind of man."

--Thomas Jefferson

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest -ridden people maintaining
a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which
their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their
own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson

You guys are rediculous.(sic) What benefit does secular humanism give you? A false sense of intellectual superiority to rest your weary head on when the forces of the universe deliver you an unfortunate random event?

What benefit does religious fanaticism give you?

An excuse to reject inconvenient facts that prove the world doesn't resemble either your perceptions or your claims?

[orangeatheist]

In February 2002, the president and Laura Bush visited a Shinto shrine in Japan, to which they showed respect with a bow. They were immediately denounced by evangelical organizations for having "worshipped the idol." To listen to the anguished cries of disbelief from Bush's Christian base, you would have thought he had met the same fate as Harrison Ford in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," where Indie was hypnotized by the evil rajah into worshipping the pernicious Hindu idol of the thugees.

Which is why I don't buy the: Bush is a radical Christian Fundy argument.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Which is why I don't buy the: Bush is a radical Christian Fundy argument.

I've always maintained that Smirk merely impersonated a radical Christian fundie in order to bank the radical Christian fundie vote.

This was Rove's strategy when Smirk was running for governor of Texas, and Turd Blossom has stuck with the strategy to the present.

The Shinto shrine incident was just a PR lapse.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Um, actually, Juan Cole is a Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the History Department of the University of Michigan.

(But don't let this inconvenient fact stop you from tippling the faith-based Kool-Aid.)



Translation:

"I can't really argue the truth or falsehood of the author's claims, so I'll just apply a label like "speculative rant" and declare another imaginary, didn't-win-nothin' victory."

BTW, why would you assume I'm a "secular humanist?" Moreover, why do you suggest that "Christian" and "secular humanist" are the only two possibilities where religion is concerned?



It would be more accurate to say that "Christian" is little more than a tired, shopworn brand name that has been co-opted by a gazillion churches, groups, and individuals for the purpose of rationalizing and furthering their agendas.



How about respecting the framers' stipulation re: the seperation of church and state?



"Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies."

--Thomas Jefferson

"What has been the fruits of Christianity? ...Superstition, bigotry and persecution."

--James Madison, 4th president of the U.S.

"Once there was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled.
This time is called the Dark Ages. The clergy believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against any form of tyranny known to the mind of man."

--Thomas Jefferson

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest -ridden people maintaining
a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which
their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their
own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson



What benefit does religious fanaticism give you?

An excuse to reject inconvenient facts that prove the world doesn't resemble either your perceptions or your claims?

I did not reveal any of my philosophy regarding 'inconvenient facts' to you in my short reply. For you, speculation seems to be a common truth gathering mechanism.

Fanaticism seems to be your only understanding of communicating or problem solving.

By the way, you never did deny the secular humanism (which is not a religious paradigm by the way).

Your professor friend Cole seems to be very resolved to spewing propaganda by the way. That is for certain a mark of fanaticism...the disregard for common truths to promote one's agenda.

If you want to discuss facts, lets do it. No more of this pointelss bantering.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I did not reveal any of my philosophy regarding 'inconvenient facts' to you in my short reply.

My point exactly.

You offered neither facts nor rationale in your dismissal of the author's claims. You merely applied a label without qualification and acted as if that settled the whole matter.

For you, speculation seems to be a common truth gathering mechanism.

rofl Now that's a whopping attempt at projection if I ever saw one.

Once again, this sort of blanket dismissal of the author's claims as "speculation" is a convenient way for you to avoid any examination of their truth or falsehood.

Fanaticism seems to be your only understanding of communicating or problem solving.

...and the projections just keep on coming.

By the way, you never did deny the secular humanism (which is not a religious paradigm by the way).

You claimed I was a secular humanist. Thus, the burdon of proof is on you.

Your professor friend Cole seems to be very resolved to spewing propaganda by the way. That is for certain a mark of fanaticism...the disregard for common truths to promote one's agenda.

There you go again with the same unqualified dismissal.

Rejecting all of the author's claims as "propaganda" without qualification is simply your way of avoiding and short-circuiting any rational debate re: the truth or falsehood of specific claims made by the author.

If you want to discuss facts, lets do it. No more of this pointelss bantering.

I've been presenting and discussing facts since the outset - you have been going out of your way to avoid them.

Your continuous use of the "right because I say so" fallacy would get you laughed out of any lower division ethics class.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

BTW, angryllama = watermock?

(Couldn't help noticing that he misspells the same words and generally butchers the English language in the same way as the OM's version of Foster Brooks.)

http://www.bartcop.com/wwn-schiavo.gif

[epicSocialism4tw]

Juan Cole Nails the Fundies to the Cross

"It isn't just Michael Schiavo -- even George W. Bush has drawn the wrath of American evangelicals. In February 2002, the president and Laura Bush visited a Shinto shrine in Japan, to which they showed respect with a bow. They were immediately denounced by evangelical organizations for having "worshipped the idol." To listen to the anguished cries of disbelief from Bush's Christian base, you would have thought he had met the same fate as Harrison Ford in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," where Indie was hypnotized by the evil rajah into worshipping the pernicious Hindu idol of the thugees."

This paragraph addresses a difference in viewpoint that the author dismisses as trivial without giving any quote ir references to what he is discussing leaving the reader wondering. The author also uses the words 'evangelical oganizations' as though it encompasses a large portion of Christian opinion. It addresses the proposed probelm by completly dismissing his opposition as beneath him. A very arrogant entrance to the article. Any proper professor would have approached it with more balance.

The reason for the evangelicals' frenzy is the first two commandments of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), said to have been given to Moses on Mount Sinai by God. The first says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The second says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..." George and Laura's respectful nod to the spirits in the Meiji Shrine violated those precepts in the eyes of true believers.

Here the author opens the paragraph questioning the legitimacy of the Ten Commandments and thus, the entirety of any faith tied to it. That is subtle propaganda.

Both the reelection of George Bush and the Schiavo travesty have heightened the sense that the religious right in the United States is all-powerful. Reading the press, you get the impression that almost all Americans are devout Christians, people who believe in a literal heaven and hell and spend their idle moments devouring the "Left Behind" novels about the end of the world. This isn't true -- and it's getting less true all the time. While evangelical Christians are a significant political force, they are probably only a fifth of the country, and not all of them are politically conservative: Only 14 percent of voters in an exit poll for the presidential elections in 2000 characterized themselves as part of the "Christian right." In fact, polls show that the United States is becoming less religious. Only about 60 percent of Americans say religion is important in their lives. The United States is still a predominantly Christian country, but it is no longer an overwhelmingly Christian one. And more and more Americans are either non-religious, unchurched or subscribe to non-Christian religions.

Here the author makes several assumptions and the article completely loses legitimacy in my opinion. He begins with the assumption that there is a decline in the number of people who accept Christian philosophy. I say assumption because he gives no data outside of a speculative proportion and a mention of 'polls.' It has now become irrefutable that this is an opinion article, not one worthy of study. You seem to be posting it as though it is worthy of study. This is where you come off no different than Robb, who was banished from this board for posting propaganda.

The public relations fiasco that attended the Republican Party's cynical attempt to play the religion card in the tragic case of the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo suggests that the religious right has jumped the shark. (This phrase refers to the point at which a popular television series does something weird and over-the-top and then goes into a ratings spiral.) Still, it has not given up exploiting God for political gain, as demonstrated by the widespread movement among American evangelicals to place the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Secular analysts cast this struggle as one between liberal and conservative principles. There is another conflict going on here, however, between the new multicultural America of many religions (or none), and the traditionally Christian-dominated country that is fading away at the beginning of the 21st century.

In 2001, Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama had a massive two-ton granite monument bearing the Ten Commandments wheeled into the state Supreme Court building. The Southern Poverty Law Center and other organizations sued to have it removed, on the grounds that its installation in this public building constituted a state endorsement of a particular religion.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This archaic phrase is now difficult to understand. In colonial times, each of the 13 colonies had an "established" religion, which was officially endorsed by the government and imposed on citizens. In Anglican Virginia, ship captains who brought Quakers into the state were fined, and dissidents were tried for heresy. The Bill of Rights was intended to ensure that the federal government of the new United States did not "establish" (that is, adopt as official and obligatory) any particular religion.

(So much for the fundie-rightards' contention that the removal of Moore's butt-ugly monument constituted an infringement of THEIR freedom of religion! Rolling Eyes)

The courts ruled against Moore, but he refused to obey them, declining to mothball the monument to the Ten Commandments. A special judicial court removed Moore from his position as chief justice late in 2003. Moore complained to CNN, "Without acknowledgement of God, we have no justice system, according to the Constitution. And that, I'm sworn to uphold." Rolling Eyes

(Oh, boo f*cking hoo.)

But fewer and fewer Americans are interested in Moore's God. Laughing

Since 2003, the movement to display the Ten Commandments on government property has spread faster than SARS on an Asian chicken farm. One Indiana county cleverly displayed the Decalogue as a historical document alongside other such documents, and on March 29 of this year the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its right to do so. The day before, the Mississippi Senate had voted to display the Ten Commandments in all public buildings.

The Moore case has been taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the groups that filed a "friend of the court" brief against the Ten Commandments monument was the Hindu American Foundation, along with Buddhists and Jains.

How significant is this ranging of American non-Christians against the Decalogue? The 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, discovered an America that is changing rapidly with regard to religion. In the 11 years since the first such poll (done in 1990), the number of Americans who considered themselves to have no religion increased from 8 percent to 14 percent. In real terms, these open unbelievers increased from 14 million to nearly 30 million, as extrapolated from the polls. In addition, the proportion of Americans who identified with a specific religion fell from 90 percent to 81 percent.

Despite all the thundering by the Revs. Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell about the evils of secular humanism, then, it is making rapid inroads in American society. Worse for them, the percentage of Americans who say they are "Christian" fell from 86 in 1990 to only 77 in 2001. Laughing

(So much for that "America is a Christian country" BS!)

The elephant-headed god Ganesha is a favorite of Hindu worshippers, especially in western India. Ganesha has come to America, too. If you visit the Web page of the Bharatiya Temple in Troy, Mich., you will find a hyperlink to the left marked "Images." In Old Testament language, it might as well say "graven images." A statuette of Ganesha is displayed there. Asian and other non-Christian religions (Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and so forth) still do not make up more than about 4 percent of the American population, but their adherents grew from about 5 million to over 7 million between 1990 and 2001 in the SUNY poll (which probably undercounts the smaller groups). As the Asian population grows in the United States, the number of Buddhists and Muslims will increase significantly. The United States adds a million immigrants a year, many of them from Asia.

Although American Muslims agree with the precepts enshrined in the Ten Commandments, they are fully aware that the move to post it in public buildings is designed to bolster the Christian right in an exclusivist way, and so they have largely made common cause with American Hindus against it.

The friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Hindus and others notes, "To members of non-Judeo-Christian religions, the Ten Commandments do not merely recite non-controversial ethical maxims; several Commandments (e.g., the first, second and third) address the forms and objects of religious worship." Underlining that there are nearly a million Hindus in the United States, and some 700 Hindu temples, the brief says, "Nor can Hindus accept the First Commandment's prohibition against 'graven images.' The use of murtis (sacred representations of God in any of God's various forms) is central to the practice of the religion for virtually all Hindus." The government-sponsored posting of the Ten Commandments implies a U.S. government preference for a theology that Hindus cannot accept. As for the country's 3 million Buddhists, the brief is even more blunt: "The conception of God, or the notion of worshipping creator gods, is considered an obstacle to the enlightenment sought by Buddhists." Twisted Evil

Government endorsement of any particular religion's conception of God is also an obstacle to the American dream, of a society where the state is neutral with regard to theology. The founding fathers signed into law a 1797 treaty with Tripoli (now Libya), which declares that "...the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and adds that "it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]." The idea of the United States government as religiously neutral was linked in this treaty with the notion of peace among nations. The treaty adds, "it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries..."

More than 200 years later, all the progress achieved in the realm of religious tolerance by the first generation of Americans is in danger of being wiped out by ignorant fanatics who are not good enough to shine their shoes. That danger arises even as the number of non-Christians has risen to record highs. The irony is that the true iconoclasts throughout Christian history would have recognized Judge Moore's two-ton behemoth for what it is: a graven idol.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/04/01/non_christian/print.html