Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Here! Here! Stephen.

His legacy will live on.

I’d say that one of his great accomplishments was resisting the conservative Hawks who didn’t trust Gorbachev, and beginning the disarming process. Gorbachev and Reagan profoundly changed our world together, and I’m thankful.

Oddly enough, in watching the coverage of Reagan’s death tonight one of my favorite quotes is from John Kerry: “He was our oldest president, but he made America young again.”

I like that a lot, and think it captures somethings important. Considering the cynicism and ennui that pervades most American politics today (and I’ve never really experienced anything different, since I still hadn’t reached my teens when Reagan left office) I’d like to think that Reagan’s death might in some weird way bring people together from both sides of the political spectrum, even those who disagreed with Reagan’s politics. There’s far too little optimism on the part of anybody today—sometimes it seems to be all despair, resentment, and mutal loathing. In reading my history, I realize that that’s not what America is supposed to be about. I especially liked hearing about what good friends Reagan was with many Democratic leaders who disagreed with him profoundly about many things but still gave—and received—mutal respect and courtesy.

The part Ronald Reagan played in bringing down the Soviet Union is really the great success of that time frame. Ron went along with the CIA in working to dismantle the Soviets by outspending them militarily and then by working to fund the Mujhahadeen in Afghanistan to break the Soviet stronghold. It was these two spheres that eventually made the USSR collapse not any meeting with Gorbachev, that was after we knew that we had outspent them militarily and they were looking to negotiate.

He(Gorbachev) was a new leader after Brezhnev inheriting major problems and had little choice but to open negotiations and I think that a lesser man would not have done it, on either side. But we also had their balls to the wall and they were doing everything to compete with us militarily and rendering themselves “Goin’ for broke” in the process.

It was also the Soviet’s defeat and withdrawal from Afghanistan that made it possible for the Berlin Wall to come down. The Soviets couldn’t even respond and Gorbachev was convinced that they shouldn’t but that was under Bush 1. But the groundwork was laid by the CIA and the Whitehouse under Ronald Reagan.

Remember the “Star Wars” hoopla? That was an attempt to get the Soviets to spend militarily heavy and hence under such guises we broke their backs financially. In truth they would not have fallen on their own without our push. We had luck in having a leader like Gorbachev to deal with over there but we also had a strong Cold War op here at home. And Ronald Reagan played a brilliant part as an easygoing negotiator to bring that about his negotiability in a good cop/bad cop sort of way greased the wheels of change with Gorbachev.

Mount Rushmore No, our gratitude YES.

Man, I must be thinking of a different President Reagan.

When I think back on the one I remember, I think of

• a disastrous “trickle down” economic theory
• The October Surprise
• guys like Poindexter, Abrams, and North who protected the President & VP Bush by flat out lying to Congress about selling arms to Iran, and being saved from doing hard time by a presidential pardon
• the fact that the arms for hostages deal was, in fact, negotiating with terrorists
• Negroponte turning a blind eye to Reagan’s CIA sponsored Honduran death squads
• his anti-drug campaign: “Just say no” - unless you’re buying from the CIA to finance the Contras
• him pulling out of Lebanon after a Syrian sponsored terrorist attack killed 241 US Marines, and then never retaliating - thus giving Islamic terrorists their first propaganda victory
• him selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein
• the birth of the neo-cons and the beginning of the “win at all costs” conservatives his presidency fostered
• his cutting of treatment programs for drug users and emphasis on imprisonment

I remember a bunch of stuff like that. I don’t remember this Saint Reagan you guys are talking about. Must be two different people.

I don’t know what to say about this. I never liked him as a President, though his galvanizing of the nation was undeniable. (That he took us in directions I abhorred doesn’t bely his effectiveness as a motivator). I hated his simplistic Us vs. Them, Good vs. Evil view of the world, and I groaned when he said things such as “I didn’t know there were still racial problems in America”. Yet I have to admit I often laughed at his folksy humor and liked the way he told stories just like anyone’s grandpa. I respected his love of this country and its people, if not how he led us. I felt he was a dangerous man, but not an evil one. In the end I always felt he was better suited to have been someone’s fiesty old grandfather than the leader of the Free World. I think I would have enjoyed hanging with Reagan for a while. I’d have gotten a kick out of listening to his tales of old Hollywood, of his political battles. I’d have probably ended up arguing with his ultra-conservative views, and probably have pulled my hair out trying to get him to understand how hard America’s been on its minorities. And in that fantasy world I’ve crafted where he and I talked and he was never President, I’d have left him, saying, “Thank God he doesn’t have any real power!”

But in the end, he was just a man—a man who loved and lost, who dealt with divorce and its effects, who had problems understanding his kids, who loved his wife Nancy passionately. Reagan was a man who did his best, and of whom it can at least be said, he fought what he thought was the Good Fight. I always hated what he stood for, but could never bring my self to hate the man.

Rest in Peace, Mr. President…

The political climate during the Reagan years wasn’t “cynicism and ennui”, I guess, but it wasn’t all sweetness and light either. It was almost as rancorous and bitter as it is today. A lot of Americans really didn’t like Reagan. Those of us who were poor in the 1980s, for example, had many reasons to resent him.

It’s a testament to his political sophistication that he managed to build bridges to reach some of his political opponents, however, and many of his speeches and statements are going to live forever as the great words of a true statesman.

What a stark contrast to today’s leadership. I used to think that Bush was less conservative than Reagan, but I have changed my mind about that. At least Reagan never claimed that he received his instructions directly from conversations with God. In that sense, he represents a preferable breed of conservative to today’s crop.

Look, I’m trying to say something nice, really.

-Cf

Sure you are, Christopher. Conversations directly with god? Where do you people get this stuff?

Martin, try reading the latest book out on Bush written by a conservative pastor who interviewed Bush for many hours. In Bush’s own words, he converses with God every morning. His wife Laura also states he prays every morning. Why defend a man you know so little about?

He prays, David. So what? Every president in my lifetime has been religious, which involves praying—is that news to you? Is a political leader not allowed to be religious? For someone who purports to defend the Bill of Rights, you seem surprisingly unfamiliar with the freedom of American citizens to practice religion.

Clinton in particular, during his sex scandal, met frequently with his spiritual advisor Jesse Jackson to “converse with god.” That the left has a problem with Bush being religious is truly remarkable, considering how many of their political leaders are not only religious but give political speeches behind the pulpits of Black churches every Sunday. You have NEVER seen a Republican President give a “sermon” behind a pulpit like Clinton and Gore regularly did.

I recall Ronald Reagan in the context of being just a kid. I really didn’t have much of a firm idea of the policies or whatever, being only eight years old when he left office.

But looking at the videos of his speeches, it’s easy to see why the kid I was loved him so much as a commander in Chief, and in part what disappointed me so greatly about the Republican party that followed in his footsteps. Reagan could compromise, he could be friendly across partisan line, he could reach out even to his worst enemy.

Bush did little to dispel that respect. He had a grandfatherly sense to him, and even if he was a bit of an east coast elitist, he was at least a nice one.

Then came Clinton. As much as I disliked his election, and felt disappointed that Bush was defeated, I was willing to accord him the respect that I had been taught a president was due. Instead of seeing that from my own party, all I saw was the most vicious kind of rhetoric and terrible display of the politics of personal destruction. Disgusted, I went from simply according Clinton respect, to giving him my full support, because at the very least, he seemed more deserving of it, in terms of how he engaged the rest of America, than these attack dogs who didn’t care what divisiveness and hatreds they drummed up. Having dealt with daily humiliations in my own life recent to that, I was in no mood to justify somebody else’s humiliation and degradation.

In the end, I don’t want a president who’s shut me out of the group of people he’s willing to listen to. I don’t want a man who considers me a fool, or a traitor, or a degenerate. I have too much self respect to subject myself to that. I would rather have a flawed man president, than a hostile one. So far, Bush’s government seems all too willing to marginalize me, and those like me. And that is a shame. I would have supported him, had he been the better statesman. I would have supported him, if the pattern of his decision making in office had been excellent. Unfortunately, he’s done too little to earn the respect of those who aren’t obligated by party loyalties to support him, and that is an awful shame.

Martin, you asked where people get this stuff. I answered. Guess you didn’t like the answer. Thanks for helping me out there.

Oh gaaaawd not the “Black Pulpit Thing” Martin, spare us all!

And Jesse Jackson and others met with Bill Clinton, Bill is a lawyer Martin. This was an attempt to ease the allegations of the right wing. Because in right wing America if you aren’t a fundamentalist christian you are somehow deemed not a good or humble person. And in many ways PR-wise Clinton was not. And didn’t fire Janet Reno or charge her with crimes, which would have been testament to that.

*Black churches are community centers for many urban and even rural blacks in the U.S.

Oh and secondly Martin, Black Churches by and large aren’t trying to rule America, I guess they just know the meaning of give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and…(you know the rest)

Fundamentalist churches have very large agendas with big money backing it that stretch outside of the separation of church and state of which this country was founded. They want to overule the very tenets of this country’s foundations and publish tons of loose rhetoric and literature to that effect. They want to give unto Caesar what is God’s, in a manner of speaking, and to God what is Caesar’s. Is that what passes for Christianity with fundamentalists?

Most black churches in contrast just want equality, opportunity and a better safer community.

One of the great ironies of our age is that for leftists, who claim to embrace cultural diversity, political correctness doesn’t extend to evangelical Christians. It’s perfectly okay to say things about American Christians that would instantly be labeled “hate speech” if directed against Muslims, gays, blacks, or any other group. Fundamentalists are the last group that it’s still okay to hate, smear and sterotype in “polite society.”

I see no evidence whatsoever (and leftist hysteria doesn’t count as evidence) that fundamentalists want to “overrule” the tenents of this country’s foundations. In fact, I consider saying so to be a kind of bigotry, no different from saying that Jews only care about money.

I’m not even religious, but I know egregious stereotypes when I see them. I have no use for the likes of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, or for that matter Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. They’re all cut from the same cloth, in my opinion, but they’re all within their rights to operate and vote according to their beliefs.

It’s also true, however, that fundamentalist AND black churches have both made important contributions to our civil life. In my view, despite their positive contributions, the fundamentalist tendency is to go too far in wrapping their opposition to many gay issues in religious terms; by the same token, black churces go too far in equally wrappping in religious terms a leftist economic agenda (which has proven debilitating to the communities they serve). And by the way, want to talk about the level of tolerance for homosexuality in the black religious community? Not a whit different from the fundamentalist attitude.

I’m not the one objecting to either fundamentalist or black churches participating in the democratic process. What I’m pointing out is the hypocricy of saying that it’s okay for some to organize and participate but “frightening” and wrong when others do it.

David, I don’t think you did answer—you just referred to some book without even naming it (have you read it?) that some preacher wrote about Bush. I see no basis for saying that Bush claims to “converse with god”; I suspect that this means he prays. As do the majority of Americans. Chilling indeed.

Ofcourse they have the right to operate and vote, they have the right to strive towards most any agenda they please.

But the right wing fundamentalists want God in all fascets of state, whereas black churches are not actively persuing that nor do they particularly advocate that.

There are PAC’s on capitol hill that have that agenda and are lobbying congress on various things. Black religious institutions do not, perhaps some independent religious figures (Jackson, Sharpton)but not the religion. Right wing fundamentalists do have a broad sweeping religion based agenda. The only religion based agenda of Blacks namely is opportunity and social change. Just because they are both ‘religion’ does not make them similar entities in their platforms on the hill.

Christian fundamentalists want to;

*Get rid of evolution education for bible based creationism instead

*Make abortion illegal-AND Martin you wanna’ talk about something that leads to generational poverty, try on the topic of teen pregnancy!

*Bring christianity into every form of civics as if they are the only religion here-what about The Hare Krishnas or Scientology or Santeria or Satanism? Can they come in too?
*Post the ten commandments in courtrooms and in courthouses, what about other religions? Do they post their religious articles on the wall too? How about L.Ron Hubbard’s theory that an alien race created the whole universe and we need to be made “clear”(brainwashing technique)to see it or maybe Heavens Gate has something to add to a courtroom! The ten commandments from the Holo-deck. DOES THIS STUFF NOT MAKE A MOCKERY OF OUR COURTS and its proceedings?

*They want to have prayer in schools I say that’s fine too all atheists aside, but they have a more prosletizational agenda. Including prayer clubs sponsored by the schools which sounds good from the outset but what about other religions; Wicca, Santeria, Buddhism, Hinduism etc. Teachers have a job to do they aren’t there for amusement purposes these kids can do that stuff on their own time and their own dime. You don’t ever see these churches creating morning youth chapels! They don’t want to pay taxes and they want US to foot the bill so Timmy and Mary can get their daily dose of fundamentalist theology. I want to see those kids get a good education they know what day Sunday is. And if they want prayer before school invite the kids over to their house before school starts, we the tax payer don’t pay the bills on their house. But what the fundamentalists want is to prosletize, pure and simple. the more they spread their religion the more money the church makes.

There’s more but this post is running too long.

Conversations directly with god? Where do you people get this stuff?

Hey Martin. This is my favorite:

President Bush tells former Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he told me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I’m determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.”

Bush talks about how God tells him to do stuff, then makes it clear that getting re-elected is more important than solving the Israel/Palestinian problem and removing a major source of militant Islam.

This is a Bush quote from “The Faith of George W. Bush”,

“I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen… I know it won’t be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.”

I understand that many psychopaths hear little voices also. :)

Then, who can forget the chilling, surreal scene at Camp David from “The Price of Loyalty” where Rice is playing the piano while Ashcroft & Bush sing gospals and O’Neill is reading assassination orders waiting for Bush’s signature.

Martin, the Religious Right has been grabbing at power for decades now. The zeal with which they do it, and the contempt they show for people who aren’t evangelical Christians or fundamentalists combine to give people the sense that they cannot reason with these folks. The natural result of that is, admittedly, intolerance for those people, which unfortunately only makes them more willing to isolate and alienate.

The thing to understand about the American left is that they are a product of America’s enlightenment and modernist traditions. That means that freedom is valued more than orthodoxy, clear reasoning and scholarship are valued above religious and traditional imperatives, and democratic consensus building is valued over patriarchal “great man” leadership.

But what makes it worse is that the Religious right chooses to believe that the left hold their opinions out of malice and a degenerate outlook on life.

In which case the rancor is a result of the mutual estrangement of the two sides, not merely the intolerance of one or the other.

Intolerance in this case is a two-way street.

Lots of people try to organize on behalf of their agendas—call that “grabbing for power” if you like, but it’s pretty lame politics if you’re not grabbing for power. The posting of ten commandments, prayer in schools, the banning of evolution-education, these are all the agendas of a vocal minority of Christians which the media loves to play up because it gives them a chance to perpetuate bigoted stereotypes. Saying this is the main agenda of Christians is like saying Muslims all want to crash airplanes into buildings. Look at any poll on what fundamentalists care about—abortion leads every list. I’m not one of them, and I disagree with their position regarding abortion, but it in my eyes protecting the lives of the unborn is a matter of conscience for these people—something at the very least worthy of respect.

I have my own secular opinions about things—but unlike my secular counterparts on the left, I don’t treat my secular worldview as a religion in itself. Trading intolerance of one group for intolerance of another is all the left has done. When I see a right-wing preacher from Alabama or wherever raving about gays and abortion, I don’t think—gee, he reminds me of Bush. I think, gee, reminds me of Howard Dean and Al Gore.

skunkbud-

Although I don’t think of myself as a “Christian Fundamentalist” I am someone who is concerned by the efforts of the secular left on our society. To respond to your arguments:

Make abortion illegal- I don’t want to make criminals out of young teenage girls (and what of their partner boys?) but once you see an ultrasound at about 12 weeks you will know the other side of this argument. I wish we could come to an illogical conclusion with an arbitrary cut-off (say 13.26 weeks) but to do so is an impossible compromise by both sides. Until then we will have to live with Roe V Wade (which almost included such an arbitrary cut-off).

Bring Christianity in to every form of civics- I would just like to prevent the removal of God from our civics. I’m sorry, but the United States is not, and has ever been, a secular institution. I would not want to impose my Christian beliefs on anyone, but God is an essential ingredient to the greatness of this country. The assault on this nation under God by the secular left has been and is very alarming to people, like myself, that believe that we wouldn’t be here without our faith and trust in God. Try Reagan’s">http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1984/82384a.htm”>Reagan’s speech on the subject.

Post the Ten Commandments in courthouses- I don’t want them removed as the moral underpinning to many of our laws.

Prayer in school- again, it’s a case of protecting the prayer that was already in school from being discriminated against in favor of some sort of secular religion.

Many years ago there was a news show that featured guests Al Sharpton and Rush Limbaugh sitting side-by-side. When Rush asked Al why he advocated such extreme positions, Al said that he had to be extreme in order to obtain a more balanced result.

Maybe that’s what is going on here; people on both sides taking extreme positions in hopes of a balanced resolution. But I believe as Reagan did that our greatness comes from God, and that God can not and should not be removed from our government, our laws, and our history. I’ll bet there are a lot of others who believe the same, and that’ why I oppose the agenda of the secular left.

George, I tend to be on your side (when it comes to combatting the leftist agenda) but I don’t think that pushing for prayer in schools or the ten commandments in a court house is really helpful to your cause, mostly because it unintendedly feeds into the stereotypes the left pushes about Christians. And if you do achieve those things—then what? You haven’t meaningfully changed anyone’s minds. If you want to bring people around your ideas, you’ll go much farther with personal pursuasion—good old fashioned evangelism—that trying to achieve symbolic gestures like rote prayer before math class or a plaque on the wall.

I understand, but disagree, with your conscientious objection to abortion—and think there’s a moral question there that’s not at all easy to dismiss. Remember that Jesus didn’t want to make himself into a secular ruler—he wanted to change hearts and minds.

Martin- Thanks for your reply. Abortion is a very tough subject. Many have concluded that abortion is murder, and murder is punished as a criminal offense. But this approach usually fails to take into account the male participant and does not look at the damage done to our teens and young adults. I just wish we had something more than Roe v. Wade that recognizes the unborn without trying to decide when life started. The only way I see to do it is to just pick an arbitrary cut-off that is not tied to trimesters or when a fetus could live outside the womb or anything else.

As for pushing a religious agenda, I’m sure some feel as though they have to counter the attack of the secularists by using the tactics you noted. I don’t support those types of tactics, but I guess I do understand them. What concerns me is when God is attacked and removed from our society. To deny our greatness as a Country and to deny God’s roll in that greatness, is what saddens me. So I do get upset at attempts to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency and take God out of the pledge. But sticking a big granite Ten Commandments in the middle of a courthouse for the sake of argument is certainly over the top.

Maybe it’s all over the top in politics today from both sides, and what I react to the most is the most extreme from the secular side. But Ronald Reagan fought this very battle back in the 80’s and showed us that it was o.k. to, as a nation, be who we are. And we are not secular, not socialists, and not dependent on government to solve our problems. I like it that way.

Martin- Thanks for your reply. Abortion is a very tough subject. Many have concluded that abortion is murder, and murder is punished as a criminal offense. But this approach usually fails to take into account the male participant and does not look at the damage done to our teens and young adults. I just wish we had something more than Roe v. Wade that recognizes the unborn without trying to decide when life started. The only way I see to do it is to just pick an arbitrary cut-off that is not tied to trimesters or when a fetus could live outside the womb or anything else.

As for pushing a religious agenda, I’m sure some feel as though they have to counter the attack of the secularists by using the tactics you noted. I don’t support those types of tactics, but I guess I do understand them. What concerns me is when God is attacked and removed from our society. To deny our greatness as a Country and to deny God’s roll in that greatness, is what saddens me. So I do get upset at attempts to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency and take God out of the pledge. But sticking a big granite Ten Commandments in the middle of a courthouse for the sake of argument is certainly over the top.

Maybe it’s all over the top in politics today from both sides, and what I react to the most is the most extreme from the secular side. But Ronald Reagan fought this very battle back in the 80’s and showed us that it was o.k. to, as a nation, be who we are. And we are not secular, not socialists, and not dependent on government to solve our problems. I like it that way.

George, thank you for dismissing all this credit being attributed to Reagan. I was getting worried. But, now that the cat is out of the bag that both you and Reagan know “that our greatness comes from God”, it puts folks like Reagan and Bush Jr. in their proper place as being run of the mill folk who believe.

Interesting how the greatness of royal families in the Arab world also come from God, according to some. As did Kings of England and Spain and other European nations. The Kings and Queens were just incidental. God was behind the Inquisitions, Crusades, and all manner of other historical events commonly referred to as “in His name” which made those nations great in their day. See, if not for the ignorance of historians and scholars, we could all be enlightened to follow “his” will and ignore common folks like Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr., and common sense, logic, and rational decision making and policy and national endeavor. And thank God for directing us to drop those Atomic Bombs in Japan, for surely, we would have lost the war had we not been so guided by God.

Oh, yeah, and let’s not forget God helps those who help themselves, right? So all those politicians helping themselves to the public till do so in “his” name too, eh? And certainly God had abandoned us during the 1860’s, right? I mean we were not a very great nation then, were we? But was it slavery or northern capitalist greed that God disfavored our nation with a civil war?

Yeah, this makes for pretty interesting political debate, to introduce God as the author of all great deeds and ideas of human beings. Hitler had great ideas and performed great deeds bringing Germany out of depression and putting a VW into households of the working class. Was God behind Germany’s greatness before its fall? And China is marching forward to becoming the greatest economic power on the planet. Is God also rewarding the Chinese with his favor. And what about the Egyptians - now that was a great ancient civilization - yeah, no need to study archeology, or apply social science or political constructs to understand how they became so great. It was God that made them Great, Ra!

This is my long winded way of making the point that there are a lot of problems ascribing greatness in the affairs of men and nations to God. There are a fair number of Sunday Christians in the Congress who pay lip service for political expedience. Nixon and JFK come to mind. Were they great because of God, or were there more secular reasons for Nixon’s opening the door to China, or JFK’s persuasive arguments for Civil Rights despite his gross inaction?

David-

I believe that religion and God’s role in our country is very macro concept that you are trying to push to the micro level. You seem to want to say that if you ascribe the great moments, concepts or decisions to God then you must ascribe the not so great moments. And as God is by definition infallible, this is contradictory in nature. I think that was the attack on Bush in another blog here if I’m not mistaken (that he gets the answers from God over the fax or something so they must be right).

Well I certainly don’t think it works this way. Even the most revered religious person, say a Billy Graham, is going to have human fallacies and faults. I certainly don’t claim to have not made mistakes because I believe in God. To the contrary I feel I’ve already made a lifetime of them and know that, unfortunately, more of them are on the way. Same with our great Country. We’ve made a ton of mistakes over our few hundred years of existence and we will make plenty more. But I still believe in God, and this Country’s collective belief in God has guided it to the position that we are in now. If we let it our belief will continue to guide us to peace and prosperity, but if we allow the secular movement to tear down our religious underpinnings then the house of cards will fall.

George, thank you for an imminently rational response. There is great truth to what you say and imply regarding collective religious faith by a majority of American peoples. Not only is America’s consitutional protections for freedom of religious exercise a fundamental protection for domestic tranquility, but a cornerstone for individual rights vs. government.

Having studied philosophy including that of religions, it dawned on me with the study of hedonism, existentialism, and atheism, that morality and ethical behavior are not the province of religion exclusively by any means. While religion, to some large measure, does moderate and control individual behavior via subscription to rules and tenets of religion, our jails and prisons are full of a majority of theists. The bulk of them Christian. Thus, religion is no guarantor of ethical and moral behavior as the Catholic Church’s albatross of last year demonstrates. I have known a number, and currently know a few fine folks who are not religious and I would trust them with my family’s welfare and even money to an extent. One of these friends I would trust with my life. The reason is that they have sought with their minds, logic, and will to understand what manner of life is in their and their family’s best interest. They have all come to pretty much the same non-theist conclusion. The best defense for an unruly and unnecessarily dangerous population is education with an emphasis on the humanities.

Thus, I would argue that religiosity is not a prescription for ethical or moral behavior by all members of a society, though for a great many it will be. And too, education in the humanities, studies in literature, philosophy, history, and law, can, and do, go just as far as religion to predispose members of society to ethical and moral behavior. Because a rational mind inevitably comes to the conclusion that the wisdom of the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the greatest safeguard for oneself and ones progeny to live in a society governed by ethical and moral behavior.

I would go so far as to argue, that religion actually is probably less successful in molding ethical and moral behavior, since there is a natural tendency for young humans to rebuke authoritarian rules and motivate them to seek their own. Where religion purports to teach the “one” truth, education in the humanities leads to a discovery of moral and ethical truth from within, rather than from without.

But, that is an aside. Moral and ethical behavior is a rational process, a deliberative process of the human mind, and the more so when complex issues require weighing a great number of options. So, whether that rational and deliberative process is developed in a person of leadership is the most important question, not whether they are religious or not. With 47% of Americans in one poll reporting their affinity with evangelical Christianity, it appears to me religion is growing into a far more divisive issue in America than one that brings people together. One only need to look at the divide between congregations of African American Baptists and Caucasion Southern Baptists, to recognize that religion is no prescription for solidarity, concensus, or trust as to how our nation should be run and guided. Or for another example, fundamentalist Christians who prefer by over 2/3 the Republican Party and non-fundamentalist Christians who largely make up the religious rolls of the Democratic Party.

This does not even include the large minority of non-religious Americans who for all intents and purposes must be identified as well educated vs. not well educated to discuss the group in any meaninful way, since their behavior and lifestyles are very distinctly different along these lines.

Interesting discussion…

I’m a non-religious person who would actually prefer to live in a religious society—specifically a Christian one—because of the stability and humanizing effect it lends to institutions and culture in general. I don’t mean that I’d want a state-supported religion—far from it. As long as religion isn’t overly-coercive or punative to those who don’t believe, I think it’s great to have a common stock of moral thinking that we can all refer to.

I’d actually prefer a secular model, but it just doesn’t seem practicable by human beings. We’ve all seen how delightful and humane the results are of ostensibly “purely rational” political models like Communism (or the French Revolution).
Once you remove the idea of god from a society, as Nietzsche or Marx wanted to do, you’re more likely to end up with Hobbesian gospels of pure power than Enlightment reason and respect for human beings. I think it has to do with recoginizing the divine attributes (souls) of your fellow man, which tends to lead to profound respect and considerate treatment of not only other humans but nature (think of Martin Buber).
If others are just so much matter, then ideology trumps humanity fairly easily and it’s just too easy to treat others like animals. After all, they don’t have souls—kill them if they get in the way.

Borrowing from pragmatic philosphers like John Dewey and William James, I’d say that religion is just marvelously useful. Abolition, the Civil Rights Movement, Female Suffrage and even the nation’s founding were all propelled in large measure by religious thinking. I disagree strongly, however, with David’s position that well-educated tends to equal non-religious. Paradoxically perhaps, I think it’s fairly obvious that the majority of history’s greatest thinkers were deeply religious.

I’m lovin’ this string o’ diatribes!

George, I don’t contend your right to have those beliefs or persue those beliefs. But my case has not been addressed as to your assertion to Christianity being in multiple fascets of civic life.

My question sir is “What of other religions putting their religious ideology or doctorine in say, a public courthouse?”

Here’s one question that should get the wheels grinding, “Should a religion such as Heaven’s Gate or Iskcon(Hare Krishna’s) or Scientology be allowed to put their doctrine on courthouse walls?”

“Why should Christianity have this sole privelege?”

If the answer is no to the first of the two questions, then on what grounds should they not be allowed to do so?

Creationism; Q: Should we allow other creation myths in public schools in place of science? Such as the Indian myth that the world is all on the back of a giant turtle, now let’s say someone threw together a bunch of pseudo science to this effect, should teachers teach that in the place of/alongside science? (Do we pay them enough to do that?-sarcasm)

Which creation myths have more validation if they are all largely conjectural or rotely reliant?

Does Judeo-christian myth have more validity than say other religions or peoples and why or on what grounds?

Does the fundemental christian right not Give unto Caesar what is God’s when it engages in this type of assertion for status(although fine by me as it’s democratic), Caesar being a governmental entity. I.E a thing that God should not be involved in. Is it not a call to make christianity a thing of personal spaces? (I may actually have to call a priest on this one-more sarcasm- but it is an ascribed Christian tennet regardless the circumstances of Roman occupation with historical relevances)

Aaaanyway my point is that secularity is there to NOT discriminate and very few secular persons have ever said you don’t have the right to practice your religion. If christianity is allowed to take center stage then Wicca and the snake dancers and the Scientologists and Peyote eaters and other cults couldn’t be excluded. Have you seen the morass of other religions that will be taking the stage with you if you were to get what you want?

Imagine what the scool system would be like, 88 religions all prosletizing at once. Meanwhile teachers are trying to work to give kids the skills they need to survive in the world.

Sincere question; Why has no christian organization ever offered to create a “Youth Chapel” for before school services for kids with christian backgrounds or beliefs?

I’ll tell ya’ they want to prosletize. And why prosletize like no one knows where you are anyway(?) Like if people want christianity they can’t find you in the phonebook(?) or like christianity is like an undiscovered or little known religion, if we want you we will find you! you can stop haranging me on Saturday mornings at my doorstep now, we know you are there. In Florida we have atleast three Christian cable channels you are not an unknown entity, to put it mildly. I can watch my Pat Robertson four times a day just for coffee spit-takes.

I don’t hate religion I just reserve the right to have whichever one I want without public notice telling me which one I have to have. Belief is my choice.

Excuse me I have to sacrifice a goat!

skunkbud, that’s a good argument, but it wuld have been more effective to use examples like Jews, Mormons, Muslims, and Papist Catholics, all of whom have made great contributions to this country.

I would just like to prevent the removal of God from our civics. I’m sorry, but the United States is not, and has ever been, a secular institution. I would not want to impose my Christian beliefs on anyone, but God is an essential ingredient to the greatness of this country.

George, which God in particular? Would you be OK with making sure that references to God include references to the Pope as God’s representative on Earth? What about the benefits of polygamy decreed by God and practiced by Mormons and Muslims, is that OK? Can we make sure that’s in our children’s textbooks also? Can we put a copy of the Jewish ten commandments next to the Christian one in courthouses?

The purpose of minimizing religion in our civic institutions is to ensure that the government treats all Americans equally, regardless of their faith. The barring of your God from our civics upsets you. It’s the same feeling that a Catholic, or Muslim, or Jew, or Quaker would have if this country was governed as a Christian country.

It’s better that everyone bitch about their religion not being included in our physics text books, than to be fighting over whose religion should get top billing.

Oh yes MARTIN, Issac Asimov, Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein all were fundamentalist Christians. Now that’s a piece of revisionism!

And MARTIN, in response let me add that the mafia families are rather catholic, they see ‘souls’ and those ‘souls’ owe them money! Franco was a christian too, do you think it all might have something to do with personal moral ethics as opposed to religious adherence? Look at the middle east, lots of religious leaders that believe in ‘souls’ and kill and torture on a regular basis. Immorality is not confined to religion or irreligion me thinks.

David I dug your posting on this topic. True, there is an assumption in society that if non-religious and more to the point non-Christian that somehow you are not a moral person especially at election time as this sells in the south and midwest predominantly. Is that at all a valid litmus test or testament to one’s true moral adherence.

I can’t get the image out of my mind of George W. Bush snickering and mocking Carla Fay Tucker who was on death row. But yet stayed the execution of mass serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. Actually he was the only person on death row that he stayed the execution of during his years as governor. Was he listening to GOD then as he mocked a woman pleading for her life after reforming and becoming a born again christian-his own faith?

Religion is a poor barrometer of morality as is is irreligiousity a faulty determiner of someone bearing no morality.

David and Martin- I’m sure the late President would have loved this discussion, and it is fitting to have it in a blog honoring him.

David, it is obvious that you have pondered these questions throughout your life and your studies, and I applaud you for that. I guess I took more of a Tom Peters approach to come to my beliefs, but I had the benefit of great role models in my parents to emulate.

I agree that religion is not the sole prescription for moral clarity, but it is the one that this Country was built upon. And in the immortal words of the late Joe Morrison, “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”

Skunkbud, Einstein seems to have been quite religious. I didn’t say “Christian fundamentatlist,” now did I?

Isaac Asimov? A science fiction writer, isn’t he? Not really my idea of “one of history’s greatest thinkers,” but not being a Democratic, the whole star-trekky post-high-school science club wing of your party, though charming in a geeky sort of way, doesn’t carry much weight for me.

If Rove is really on his game, he’ll get Fox to run a wall-to-wall Star Trek marathon on November 2nd. That should keep most of the Dean/Gore wing of the dems glued to their chairs and out of the picture.

The Borg collective assimilates the Democrats!

It will be this afternoon before I can get back to you Skunkbud so don’t go filling up on that goat….

Yes Muslims made great contributions to this country, like Muhammad Atta the first arab to start a world war!

And secondly A.P., Actually fundamentalist Christians would really like to have the Jewish ten commandments but only if they can co-opt it as theirs, hang American flags on it and be a public nuisense in having to disturb trials in progress to go have a vigil in front of it.

Martin-George,

Actually I was trying to think of Authors that you might know of that were influential and relatively secular. Perhaps I should have gone with Arthur C. Clarke or the entire Alum of the Cambridge club(Quantum physics) but I guess the best testament to what I’m saying is in the non fiction section of any library or bookstore as I would gamble the majority of authors are not deeply religious neccessarily and yet “Deep thinkers”.

Just admit that there needs to be a balancing up of irreligious thinkers and religious thinkers as both being of influence to the greater world schematic.

…I’ve got a message coming in… hold on…

Okay, God wants to say that no science fiction writers at all count among humanity’s deepest thinkers.

Sure, there have been some very important thinkers who held no religious beliefs at all—like David Hume. Many think that the ancient Greeks, upon whose contributions much of our intellectual tradition rests, never really believed in their pantheon of gods and regarded them as metaphors for natural forces. Nonetheless, it would still be highly incorrect not to recognize that the majority of the great minds of history were religious in one way or another.

Skunkbud and AP-

I think I can answer your concerns concurrently. First let me go back to my original argument and state what I believe as fact: this is not and has never been a secular Country. This Country was founded primarily on Christian values and these values are the underpinning of our society, our laws and our values. It is the secular movement that wants to remove religion from our civics, not the other way around. Like they say about Prego, “It’s in there.”

Because of this, I believe that history has already answered your questions as to which God in particular. The word that has always been used is Big G God, a reference to a supreme being or almighty one. Who’s God? Your God. Phrasing that encompasses people from all religions who might have a different take on the subject but who believe that there is a higher authority than Mankind. And this Country has been very tolerant on the subject, especially compared to similar countries AT similar points in history.

“We establish no religion in this country, nor will we ever. We command no worship. We mandate no belief. But we poison our society when we remove its theological underpinnings. We court corruption when we leave it bereft of belief. All are free to believe or not believe; all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions.” -Ronald Reagan

George, sorry I couldn’t get back to you sooner.

My answer: GOD isn’t the one I don’t have the problem with.

Secondly George, things have changed since the 1850’s this country has all sorts of variation now in eccumenical, theist thought and religion. The country has grown from small populations mostly christian, now to include Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and others to create this big old melting pot. There are alot of new age faiths now and lots of diversity for better or worse. But let me address Martin real quick then I’ll get back to you on this, as I find it quite interesting (One second)

MARTIN, what about the authors of the Genome Project(?) or the numerous medical researchers and surgeons the world over that are working to find cures to various diseases and developing new treatments for all sorts of things. If it weren’t for the secular minds the fudamentally religious would still be in the dark ages. There would be no computers and you nor I nor George would be able to post anything. Real quick, science fiction authors have influenced and inspired lots actually-Asimov with robotics, Arthur C. Clarke with space travel, Welles and so on. okay you can claim Dante Allegheri and Tim LaHaye as great minds in the world of fiction as being of inspirations to movements but note that within the west and namely western Europe in centuries past they were under a theocratic rule. Whether the Church of England or Catholicism they were very conformist times and people were penalized for heresy and imprisoned or worse. Your assessment of “Great Minds” is quite narrow as they are minds that influence and alter man’s efforts and innevitable destinies. Myself, not a trekkie.

***Okay George,

We aren’t the same small country anymore under one religion, we have a population in this country of relatively 270 million people and all are guaranteed the same right to any religion they choose or don’t choose to have.

See the thing is that it isn’t christianity doing this-it’s just the fringe. It isn’t the Catholics-it isn’t the Episcopalians-it isn’t the Lutherans-it isn’t the methodists-It is the other groups the evangelicals and pentacostals largely.(which is fine this is a melting pot)

Other religions may go after something more pinnacle to it’s faith such as the abortion issue but with the one’s pushing Christianity in all places of civic society it is largely the fringe pushing this that don’t respect the importance of the separation of church and state or the need for it. They think they have the right that supercedes all other religions and faiths like their version of Christianity is the only one worthy of enamour and none others. It’s vanity, narcicism, self righteousness that they see themselves as higher than any others in their own field of faith or in contrast to other faiths.

They raise themselves above all religions and all Gods, I’m assuming you know the bible fairly well so I ask you is there not a warning to those who Raise themselves above all religions and all gods, because that’s what you are doing in a concensus sense. Am I wrong? That’s what you do when you want only your interpretation of God to be recognized and silence others. That should be only the hallmark of an Ayatollah not a God or Christ centered individual.

See God or Christ aren’t the problem here it’s an interpretation problem largely and faulty translators that want to stamp their mark everywhere like a dog marking his turf and present the word an image that really isn’t even theirs nor represents Christianity at large. And not theirs because it rides roughshod over all the other Christian sects that may disagree.

This movement doesn’t speak for all Christians so why advocate on behalf of all Christians. All christians don’t want this, right? So why dictate to them your TRANSLATION of GOD.

The relationship to GOD in Christianity is supposed to be a deeply personal one not a circus. Maybe GOD doesn’t want garish billboards, did you ask him? Spread the word if you want but don’t stamp your mark all over us. The image of christians as being the only good people because others more secular take the personal responsibility upon themselves not to overstep others. How do you know that this isn’t a sin on the part of pentacostalism? I mean trying to stamp those in our society in your own image through prosletization and stamp all vestiges in it with your mark dictating to others that you are greater than their faiths and declaring this to the world.

And secondly they don’t have the approval of all Christianity or Christians to do something like that. So you aren’t only gouging us you are gouging them within the same religion you espouse.

sidenote; I personally don’t mind silent prayer in classrooms nor the pledge of allegiance with the Knights of Columbus verse in there of “under God” that’s just an abbreviated way to say “we really, really, really, really mean it” given that the cold war is over.

Hope I didn’t insult anyone but it’s just the way I feel about this thing.

You seem to accept on blind faith the idea that if somebody’s a medical researcher or surgeon, then they must be “secular.” I know several doctors—some are religious, some aren’t. They’re pretty much like anybody else in this regard, but religious devotion has often been the motivating factor behind science and medicine. Madame Curie? Religious. Perhaps we we would all be living in the dark ages if it WEREN’T for religion.

Ever notice how many hospitals have in their names “Lutheran, Methodist, Prespetyrian, etc.” Are you aware that many of the organizations bringing medicine and doctors to the third world are religous?

And here is a sampling of quotes about science and religion discovered with a simple google search.

Sir John Eccles (Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine, 1963):

“We come to exist through a divine act. That divine guidance is a theme throughout our life; at our death the brain goes, but that divine guidance and love continues. Each of us is a unique, conscious being, a divine creation. It is the religious view. It is the only view consistent with all the evidence.”

Arthur L. Schawlow (Nobel Prize in Physics, 1981), J.G.Jackson-C.J.Wood Professor of Physics, Stanford University:

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious… I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”

Ulrich J. Becker, Professor of Physics, M.I.T.: “How can I exist without a Creator? I am not aware of any compelling answer ever given.”

Christian B. Anfinsen (Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1972), Professor of Biology, Johns Hopkins University:

“I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”

Charles Townes (Nobel Prize in Physics, 1964), Professor of Physics, University of California- Berkeley:

“I believe in the concept of God and in His existence.”

World-renown astrophysicist Allan Sandage (won Crafoord Prize in Astronomy):

“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something rather than nothing.”

Shoichi Yoshikawa, Professor of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University: “I think God originated the universe and life.”

Vera Kistiakowsky, M.I.T. physicist:

“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

Steven Bernasek, Professor of Chemistry, Princeton University:

“His [God’s] existence is apparent to me in everything around me, especially in my work as a scientist.”

Prominent astrophysicist George Greenstein: “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency— or, rather, Agency— must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

D.H.R. Barton (Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1969), Professor of Chemistry, Texas A & M University:

“God is Truth… God shows Himself by allowing man to establish truth.”

George, I like the Reagan quote and I totally agree with it. If people want to “speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions,” then go for it.

Just don’t force my kid’s public school to teach him that dinosaurs never existed because they’re not in the Bible.

I feel your pain on the server errors!

If you read my very first post I think you will see that we both agree that it is the fringe on both sides that we are both reacting to: for you it is the notion that the Evangelicals want to change the world to their way of thinking and for me it is the notion that the secularists want to remove everything that is religion from our public civics. I’m sure the right answer lies in between, but both sides seem to take such extreme positions.

My point in all of this, and I believe it was Reagan’s as well and why I posted his speech, is that this is a generally moral and basically good Country (I qualified those) because of its Christian underpinnings. And those underpinnings, while tolerant of any and all religions, must be preserved in order to preserve our greatness.

David’s point is well taken; that there might be better or more fair ways to bring morality to civics, but the fact is the path that we have been on has been based upon Christian beliefs. And that path has led us to where, I believe, no other civilization has gone before in terms of respect for individuals, property, and prosperity.

I, like Reagan, feel that this is a great Country. I’ll be in France in a couple of weeks, and you can bet as soon as they call my row at the gate I’ll be back on the plane heading home. At my cousin’s graduation speech the other night the speaker said that you don’t see people building rafts on the beaches of Florida trying to make it out the oppression here. Indeed it is the other way around. I just don’t want to see the things that make us great destroyed for the sake of some experiment in secularism.

As for the Evangelicals, try living in the South!

O.K. why did I get an error for having y our name in my post? skunkxxx

but the fact is the path that we have been on has been based upon Christian beliefs. And that path has led us to where, I believe, no other civilization has gone before in terms of respect for individuals, property, and prosperity.

That’s an interesting viewpoint, George. But I don’t believe that this country is based on Christian beliefs (unless you want to argue that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are distinctly Christian values - they’re not), and it’s precisely because we do not live in a Christian theocracy that we have the liberties you mention.

And the graduation speaker was right, but I just don’t want to see the things that make us great destroyed for the sake of some experiment in faith based government.

As for Southern evangelicals, I have relatives in Georgia. I know exactly what you’re talking about. They all think it’s great that creationism has been removed from the state’s science school books.

Have fun in France. For an eye opening experience, make sure you talk to some of the natives about their political beliefs and their view of the world.