February 04, 2005
America: It is a whole new future!
Given the history and immense strides the religious right have made in politics since being invited into the Whitehouse in the Reagan Administration as advisors to policy, American government is at a turning point and her future will have much less in common with her past.
What candidate running for President or Senator can now afford to alienate the religious right? I will tell you, virtually none! If they are running with an intent to win, they cannot alienate the religious right with their campaign platform (which the Democrats have just discovered). And if they seek reelection, they cannot afford to alienate the religious right in policy and law making.
Unless, and until, academic secular education in America is reelevated to its former status as the best in the world especially in history, humanities, and civics, the religious right have a permanent seat at the power brokering table of American politics, foreign and domestic policy making, and they will not be denied. The Christian right in America will no longer render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's unless Ceasar comes from their own ranks. Follow the money, honey, the Christian right has it, and the voters sufficient to keep it coming in.
It is a great victory for Christians, but, a sad day for America's future since the Constitution of the U.S. now stands in the Christian Right's way. Many don't yet see it, but there is a plethora of executive orders already underway and a number of Constitutional ammendments are coming in America's near future. They are, and will be, designed to tear down the wall between church and state in ways unimagineable just 20 years ago.
It is truly an ironic point in history, that America is engaged in a foreign policy designed to bring secular democracy and freedom to theocratic states in the Middle East, while at the same time, paving the way for its own theocracy to come. [THEOCRACY - A species of government which claims to be immediately directed by God.]
What does a rising Christian theocracy in the US portend in its foreign policy with Islamic theocracies elsewhere in the world? What does a Christian theocracy in the US with a mandate from many of its religious leaders to save heathen Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus from themselves and their religions portend for the prospect of world peace?
These are questions Americans should be asking themselves before they elect an evangelical preacher to become the Commander in Chief of the largest and most lethal military force the world has ever seen.
What does a rising Christian theocracy in the US portend…
It’s interesting this should come up. In Malaysia and Indonesia, there are government agencies for enforcing moral standards among the faithful. They regularly bust up bars that stay open on the holy days, arrest and fine the young men for drinking, and arrest the young women for skimpy attire and dancing.
Malaysia is currently experiencing a backlash because the moral police got a little out of hand recently (Google jawi malaysia for more, the incident sparked an interesting debate), but only to the extent of asking the government to reconcile civil law with religious law. So far, no one but the bloggers are brave enough to challenge the powerful religious conservative factions by asking that the moral police be disbanded.
Just thought I’d throw in a little glimpse of where government legislation of our personal lives along religious and moral lines leads us. :)
David,
Great piece, and my greatest fear. But the signs are there, the principles of democracy in America are being attacked on all fronts by Christian Zealots, but to hear them tell it they are the ones being attacked and persecuted; how ironic! Those of us who understand the tenets of freedom and democracy need to fight back, stand up, be heard, and continue to challenge those who would supplant our personal morals with their own.
The Malaysian story is a good example of religion gone completely too far. I have said it before and I will say until things change for the better and American’s once again put religion where it belongs: religion has no place in civil life.
David
The truth is, religion will usually win over politics.
Over the last 20 or so years, liberalism has been running amok with its political correctness, special interest groups issues and others things that have pissed off many that were formerly moderate in their thinking.
I think this has greatly contributed to the growth of the so-called christian right and the power it is getting.
A large number of former Dems now vote Republican and sadly, many voters who believe they are voting Republican, are actually supporting the neo-cons.
The biggest difference between a neo-con and liberal depends on who is in office. If its your party, its ok if they violate rights, if its not your party you scream about it.
We saw this from Reps in the 90’s and now we see the Dems doing it now.
VEM
“the principles of democracy in America are being attacked on all fronts by Christian Zealots”
While what you say is partially right, its a two way street my friend.
One on the right could easily say the following and be correct also.
[The very foundation and principles of our Republic are being attacked on all fronts by the socialist liberals]
Do not be content with seeing just half the picture.
When you step back and see the “whole” picture, you will then see just how far gone this once great country truely is.
If I eat a steak next Wednesday, is it a misdemeanor or a felony?
David:
“It is a great victory for Christians, but, a sad day for America’s future since the Constitution of the U.S. now stands in the Christian Right’s way. Many don’t yet see it, but there is a plethora of executive orders already underway and a number of Constitutional ammendments are coming in America’s near future. They are, and will be, designed to tear down the wall between church and state in ways unimagineable just 20 years ago.”
Maybe when this happens, America will be roused from passivity and complacency and begin to fight back?
Hopefully it will not be too late?
Peter:
“If I eat a steak next Wednesday, is it a misdemeanor or a felony?”
Depends on whether you have a Beef with the administration…
(Groan) Sorry, I couldn’t resist!
to hear them tell it they are the ones being attacked and persecuted; how ironic!I think that objectively, having all the power in the country but still complaining is very ironic. However, I think there are a couple of reasons for why they feel this way. The first is that christians in general have been admonished to “keep yourself unspotted from the world”. There is a sense of needing to protect yourself from outside influences that would encourage you to sin. This easily flows (or can be manipulated) into a feeling that it is you and your religion against the world.
The second is that, in my opinion, the United States generally becomes more in line with the promise of freedom and equality before the law over time. That leads to changes which benefit the minority (and the majority, since freedom and lack of prejudice are a benefit to all), but it forces the majority to change, or prevents them from doing what they have customarily done. The school near where I live has always acted out a nativity scene at Christmas. This year, it was cancelled. People can no longer have organized prayer in schools. Being unable to do those things is a loss of freedom. It is a justifiable, constitutional loss of freedom, but still a loss. When such a loss is felt, people feel under attack.
A third aspect is that religious people don’t usually distinguish their religious lives from the rest of their lives. People telling them things like “religion has no place in civil life” is offensive, because things that to them are facts are dismissed out of hand, or made fun of. In fact, religious feelings are why many people do what they do. The Declaration of Independence invokes the creator, and an early (and current) reason for considering all people equal were because of a belief that they were created equal by God. Religion can have both a positive and negative effect on civil life. When it is discarded or mocked, again, people feel attacked. This third reason is the most dangerous for everyone, I think. When religious people are mocked as being ignorant, and feel like their views are not heard just because they are religious views, they will turn to someone they believe is like them and will respect them, whether or not the policy aspect is sound.
The religious right uses these feelings of being under attack and separation to great effect to lobby for policies that really have very little to do with religion. I think that most differences are actually things like urban-rural living and the north-south divide, but are used by “religious” leaders to gain power with great effect.
So what’s my point? (a post this long should have a point, right?) First—there are reasons for the behavior of those who follow the religious right, and to anyone who wants to change the direction the country is going, those reasons need to be adressed. Second—WAKE UP if you think Jerry Falwell represents you as a Christian. In my opinion, you’re being used and should be angry about it.
Posted by: brian at February 4, 2005 04:02 PMI find nothing substantial to disagree with in any of the comments above. Thank you all for your insights, and perspectives, which have richly added to the article itself.
One of America’s blinders to reality is the now false concept that the US is the greatest nation on earth. Note the following statistics compiled by a very close friend of mine working with a newspaper in the S.W.:
* The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (The New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).Posted by: David R Remer at February 4, 2005 07:16 PM* The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
* One-third of our science teachers and one-half of our math teachers did not major in those subjects. (Quoted on The West Wing, but you can trust it - their researchers are legendary.)
* Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the Earth. Seventeen percent believe the Earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).
* “The International Adult Literacy Survey .. found that Americans with less than nine years of education ‘score worse than virtually all of the other countries’” (Jeremy Rifkin’s superbly documented book The European Dream : How Europe’s Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78).
* “The European Union leads the U.S. in … the number of science and engineering graduates; public research and development (R&D) expenditures; and new capital raised” (The European Dream, p.70).
* “Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990s as the largest producer of scientific literature” (The European Dream, p.70).
* Nevertheless, Congress cut funds to the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer research grants this year (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004).
* Foreign applications to U.S. grad schools declined 28% last year. Foreign student enrollment on all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in the U.S. dropped 56%, Indians 51%, South Koreans 28% (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We’re not the place to be anymore.
* The World Health Organization “ranked the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was] … 37th.” In the fairness of health care, we’re 54th. “The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world” (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less.
* “The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens” (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a “developed” country? Anyway, that’s the company we’re keeping.
* “U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower” (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look “developed” to you? Yet it’s the only “developed” country to score lower in childhood poverty.
* Twelve million American families - more than 10% of all U.S. households - “continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves.” Families that “had members who actually went hungry at some point last year” numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).
* The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
* Women are 70% more likely to die in childbirth in America than in Europe (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
* The leading cause of death of pregnant women in this country is murder (CNN, Dec. 14, 2004).
* “Of the 20 most developed countries in the world, the U.S. was dead last in the growth rate of total compensation to its work-force in the 1980s. … In the 1990s, the U.S. average compensation growth rate grew only slightly, at an annual rate of about 0.1%” (The European Dream, p.39). Yet Americans work longer hours per year than any other industrialized country, and get less vacation time.
* “Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European, while only 50 are U.S. companies” (The European Dream, p.66). “In a recent survey of the world’s 50 best companies, conducted by Global Finance, all but one was European” (The European Dream, p.69).
* “Fourteen of the 20 largest commercial banks in the world today are European. … In the chemical industry, the European company BASF is the world’s leader, and three of the top six players are European. In engineering and construction, three of the top five companies are European. … The two others are Japanese. Not a single American engineering and construction company is included among the world’s top nine competitors. In food and consumer products, Nestlé and Unilever, two European giants, rank first and second, respectively, in the world. In the food and drugstore retail trade, two European companies … are first and second, and European companies make up five of the top 10. Only four U.S. companies are on the list” (The European Dream, p.68).
* The United States has lost 1.3 million jobs to China in the last decade (CNN, Jan. 12, 2005).
* U.S. employers eliminated 1 million jobs in 2004 (The Week, Jan. 14, 2005).
* Three million six hundred thousand Americans ran out of unemployment insurance last year; 1.8 million - one in five - unemployed workers are jobless for more than six months (NYT, Jan. 9, 2005).
* Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea hold 40% of our government debt. (That’s why we talk nice to them.) “By helping keep mortgage rates from rising, China has come to play an enormous and little-noticed role in sustaining the American housing boom” (NYT, Dec. 4, 2004). Read that twice. We owe our housing boom to China, because they want us to keep buying all that stuff they manufacture.
No. 1? In most important categories we’re not even in the Top 10 anymore. Not even close. The USA is “No. 1” in nothing but weaponry, consumer spending, debt, and delusion.
P.S. China, Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan holding 40% of our national debt are the least theocratic of all modern global market players. That is not a coincidence.
Posted by: David R Remer at February 4, 2005 07:29 PM“Do not be content with seeing just half the picture.
When you step back and see the “whole” picture, you will then see just how far gone this once great country truely is.”
You people got boobies on the Super Bowl, what more do you want?
It is nice to see libs reminiscing about the past. In this “whole” picture, where exactly is the high spot in American history? When we had slaves? When women couldn’t vote? Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964? When we gave Indians small pox? Plessy vs Ferguson? No Pre-emption to prevent the Holocaust? Genocide in Cambodia? Genocide in Rwanda? How about when Clinton got impeached? When we boycotted the 1980 Olympics?
I would like to pin you liberals down on when this high spot was. I don’t need a specific day, just a month. Was it better to be alive in February, 1985 than today? How about November, 1963? August, 1969(The Mets won the world series that year and we went to the moon)?
As a conservative, there are a quite a few high spots in this great country’s history. The 14th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, dropping a few nukes on Japan, Election Day 1980, Super Bowl III, The Miracle on Ice, Waking up on September 12, 2001 and realizing we had a president with a little more than an intern’s head between his legs who would do everything in his power to prevent a terrorist attack while maintaining all of our freedoms. (Actually Election day 2004 was pretty sweet)
Posted by: Peter at February 4, 2005 08:14 PMPeter, why not grieve over the extinction of the Neanderthals while we are at it? That was then, decades ago, this is now. Can’t change the past, but, we can change our future and it is being changed today whether we want it to or not, and in a host of ways as I outlined, we are losing ground. Time to stop lamenting and holding Congress and the President responsible.
No one I know regrets our high spots, which, if we were a people of conscience and true Christians then, women’s suffrage and equal rights struggles would not have been necessary in the first place. But, we did overcome much of that, now we have a whole new set of problems which are not being attended to or addressed in an effective way.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 4, 2005 08:23 PMChina is not theocratic?? So why do those 80 million Christians practice their religion underground? Or how about being executed for printing a copy of the bible?
Posted by: Peter at February 5, 2005 06:51 AMPeter, you may be confusing the words “theocratic” and “atheistic”.
As far as high spots go, mine was the Golden Age of Clinton. Things have only gone downhill since.
Peter, the definition of Theocracy is right there in the article. [THEOCRACY - A species of government which claims to be immediately directed by God.] When was the last time you heard the Chinese politburo say it is God’s will that we do this?
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 5, 2005 01:24 PMTheir god is the State. Their religion is secularism, no other religions are allowed.
So, Clinton was the golden age for libs. Gee let me see, countless terrorist attack, we do nothing. Sudan offers Osama on a silver platter, we don’t want him. NAFTA, Defense of Marriage Act. The Impeachment, now that was good times. WACO, Oklahoma City, Columbine, Olympic Bombing. Rwanda, only a million people died there. AIDS runs rampant through Africa. Corporate America is cooking the books.
The 1998 bombing of Iraq, why did Clinton do that again? Oh that’s right? Iraq had WMD, that’s why we bombed them. Good Times.
David
You can add a 35 hour work week in France to list of what’s great about Europe. (At least for the next few weeks.)
Posted by: Peter at February 5, 2005 03:18 PMPeter said : “Their god is the State. Their religion is secularism, no other religions are allowed.”
That is an absurd statement. The government is secular, the people are largely Buddhist. According to your words any state that is secular makes the Government the god of the people, which is both false and absurd on its face. This is a tendency of those on the extreme left and right, to define words and concepts according to their needs to obfuscate, deceive, confuse and defend, rather than live up to the standards of making sense and communicating with a language that has a common meaning understood by all.
It is impossible for the rational mind to give credence to anyone who redefines words and concepts according to their needs - these are ends justifies the means people and far from ignorantly benign, such people are inherently dangerous and are to be exposed and resisted at every turn for their fallacious statements and arguments in pursuit of power, confusion, and divisiveness.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 5, 2005 04:45 PMDavid you wrote:
What candidate running for President or Senator can now afford to alienate the religious right? I will tell you, virtually none! If they are running with an intent to win, they cannot alienate the religious right with their campaign platform (which the Democrats have just discovered). And if they seek reelection, they cannot afford to alienate the religious right in policy and law making.
I would like to debate this point with you. My question and statement would be:
What Democratic Presidential candidate could win by pandering to the religious right? None!
Let me explain why. First, the words religious right, keyword being right as in not left. They are on the right; Democrats are on the left, how in the world can a Democrat not alienate them. If you meant Christians, that might make a little more sense. No Democrat can or every will when with the support of the religious right. So my question is, why does it matter if a Democratic candidate alienates the religious right?
Second, people seem to over look the fact that the religious right is not the majority of people in America. Elections can and have been won with out them. Not all Christians are on the right, I’m not. The religious right at this point and time has what is needed to win elections. What is needed to win any election? A strong message, a strong leader, and dedicated followers of both who show up at the ballot boxes on Election Day.
Lastly, what a Democratic candidate needs to do is STOP pandering to the religious right. Pandering will make them look weak and worse, it makes the religious right look like they are correct in their positions. The only way for Democrats to win this battle is to get the rest of America to VOTE! Democrats must give up on compromise and work on getting the rest of America in the game. If they find the right candidate with the right message, this all goes away; compromise equals weakness at this point. When backed into a corner, an animal doesn’t look for compromise (“I’ll let you eat my legs if you let me go”) it fights for its life. When Republicans have no reason or need to compromise and Democrats keep looking for things to compromise on, the Democrats are going to get steam rolled.
Compromise happens only when both sides are of equal power. Compromise is not necessary when you have the majority of power and it’s just a nicer word for surrender when you are without power. Now is the time for Democrats to fight for their lives. Like the animal in the corner, they must fight for their life until something comes along to change the balance of power, like a distraction, a bigger predator or darkness. Democrats need the right candidate with the right message to swing into this corner and help them fight their way out of it. This candidate can not focus on the Democratic base; this candidate must focus on the majority of Americans who did not vote. With out those Americans it’s over. The right candidate, right message, means the candidate who manages to get the disillusioned masses off their butts and to the ballot box.
Democrats need to wake up, and realize preaching to the choir is not working. They seem weak, without a message, without a leader. They must find a message for the masses, find a leader for the masses and until then fight like their life depends on it. Compromise at this point will only lead to the death of the Democratic Party.
Like I said what is needed to win any election is a strong message, a strong leader, and dedicated followers of both who will show up at the ballot boxes on Election Day.
Posted by: wisevil at February 5, 2005 05:39 PMIt is truly an ironic point in history, that America is engaged in a foreign policy designed to bring secular democracy and freedom to theocratic states in the Middle East, while at the same time, paving the way for its own theocracy to come. [THEOCRACY - A species of government which claims to be immediately directed by God.]
I don’t think it’s ironic at all. Many Christians seem to compare the US role in the Middle East with the crusades.
I disagree somewhat with your premise about alienating the religious right. This is just one path open to the democrats. What’s more important is that they do a better job of reaching out to minorities, who are generally affected in negative ways by Republican domestic policies.
Of course, for anyone not interested in seeing the Democratic party move to the right (which seems almost inevitible after their post-State of the Union rebuttle), there’s always the Green Party.
Posted by: Daniel Waldman at February 5, 2005 06:16 PMDemocrats need to wake up, and realize preaching to the choir is not working. They seem weak, without a message, without a leader. They must find a message for the masses, find a leader for the masses and until then fight like their life depends on it. Compromise at this point will only lead to the death of the Democratic Party.
Sorry wisevil, but you’re assessment of us Democrats is way off base. Pandering to the Christian Right is a political reality for those Dem candidates running in deep Red States. One, because they are organized and can turn out their base in low turnout, but pivotal Primary elections. Two, their message of fear and intolerance is guaranteed media coverage because of it’s ratings winning instant controversy, which is assured to drown out real issues, and resonate with Americans living in isolation.
If you think Bush and the Republicans won because of their ‘strong message’, why then are a good number of the 51% percent of Seniors who voted for him up in arms over his Social Security plan? Why are an equal number of Baby Boomers who voted for him expressing their opposition to their elected officials and pollsters? Why are the Evangelical leaders who believe they delivered the election, now withholding support for his SS plan, finally realizing they’ve been Punk’d again by Karl Rove?
And, why is all of this coming as some kind of surprise?
There was not a damn thing wrong with our message, and anyone quick to dismiss it as too Liberal, obviously didn’t read it’s fine print either.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 6, 2005 12:57 AMwisevil said:”What Democratic Presidential candidate could win by pandering to the religious right? None!”
You are quite right! But, if any party wants to challenge the Republicans, they will have to pander to the religious middle. Perhaps pander is the wrong word. Reflect is probably more appropriate. Folks don’t like, and can tell when they are being pandered to for votes, which usually means forgotten until the next election.
The point of my article was not to suggest a pandering to the religious in this country, right, left or otherwise, but, reflect back to them the inherent dangers of tearing down the wall between chuch and state. Extremists have been outrageous on both sides. On the right you have school boards successfully introducing creationism as science in elementary text books. On the left, you have those who would condemn public celebrations of Christmas.
The party that successfully challenges Republicans will rebut the extremists on both sides, and reflect a committment to the freedom of religious practice in the home, in the places of worship, or any legal place where those of a religion wish to celebrate their relgion, while at the same time acknowledging that tax payers reflect a great diverstity of religions and tax dollars should not be spent in support of any one religion, nor should the government favor any one religion with policy or agency resources.
Churches and synagogues today are big business. That is a reality. Even Black Baptist ministries in the North have jumped on the multi-million dollar corporate bandwagon where its leadership realizes wealth well beyond that of the common working American. Religion is a set of beliefs and prescriptions for living a good life and that should be free for all. Churches on the other hand are money and power making machines, and most centrist Americans I believe, would wisely follow a platform that denied government favoritism toward churches.
There is a world of difference between preaching the text of a religion and saving souls, improving spiritual and psychological lives, and amassing wealth and power and influence within the Committee Rooms and Campaign Headquarters of government and politicians. And it is a difference middle America has no great difficulty discerning.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 6, 2005 03:07 AMReligion is nothing more than a belief system that moves its members to action or to support a cause.
Secularism is not the absence of a belief system, rather it is the belief that there is no God and that other belief systems should be rejected.
To say secularism is not a religion is a bullying tactic used by secularists to prevent Christian from expressing their ideas. If you are a Christian and disagree with a Secularist, then you want to remove the line between church and state. If they admit that secularism is a religion, then they admit the ultimate hypocrisy.
If Red China is not theocratic, why did the Dalai Lama feel the need to leave? Has he spent 45 years in exile for no reason? Did he realize that Red China saw him as a threat? How could the Red Chinese be threatened by “a simple monk”?
Posted by: Peter at February 6, 2005 09:08 AMPeter said: Secularism is not the absence of a belief system, rather it is the belief that there is no God and that other belief systems should be rejected.
There you go Peter, making up definitions to pursue your ends by any means.
Definition: [adj] concerning those not members of the clergy; “set his collar in laic rather than clerical position”; “the lay ministry”; “the choir sings both sacred and secular music”.
Nowhere in the definition of secularism is there the idea of atheism as you proposed above. Just another example of how extremists will make up their own rules and their own language, in order to confuse and deceive others into believing the rightness of their cause.
By definition, your statement is flat out wrong, Peter.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 6, 2005 11:18 AMDavid,
A large number of Democrats are Christians. It is my belief that most spiritual Christians are Democrats and most religious Christians are Republicans. You are right about the rising power of the church; a lot of my blog site is dedicated to that subject.
So if you take out the word pandering, and change it to compromise, you would agree with my prior post?
David,
Forget the word compromise. Let’s say:
What Democratic Presidential candidate could win by giving in to the religious right? None!
Bert,
You said:
Sorry wisevil, but you’re assessment of us Democrats is way off base. Pandering to the Christian Right is a political reality for those Dem candidates running in deep Red States. One, because they are organized and can turn out their base in low turnout, but pivotal Primary elections. Two, their message of fear and intolerance is guaranteed media coverage because of it’s ratings winning instant controversy, which is assured to drown out real issues, and resonate with Americans living in isolation……………..
The Religious Right is the on the Right, don’t you get this. Is your example of a Southern Democrat pandering to the Religious Right, Zell Miller? I hate to ask this but read what I wrote again. Your belief that Democrats had the right message and the right leader has one big whole in it, THEY LOST. If Democrats think they are going to sway followers of the Religious Right to their corner, they are insane. Worse, with that tactic they will keep losing, over and over and over.
I pray you are not in the Democratic leadership. Read what I wrote, you are one of the Democrats I was speaking to, maybe a second read through and you might get it.
Wisevil, quite right (no pun intended). That is why I implied in my article that a competitive party must appeal to the religious center of America. Appeals to the right are indeed, political suicide for any party trying to win against the GOP. The religious right have become a part of the GOP’s base.
The religious center in America is looking for common sense, separation of church and state without rejection of church and religion in public life. References to God as in opening prayer, or to the Almighty in referencing inalienable rights are both appropriate and tradition to the religious center. The center however does not want to see clerics advising or dictating foreign policy, or dominating the Supreme Court and favoring the establishment of a national religion like Christianity in policy to the exclusion of others. The center is likely amenable to the states defining marriage as opposed to ammending the Constitution, though that is a guess on my part - I have no polling data to support it. The center does not want to see churches directly involved in politics because that threatens churces tax exempt status.
The religious center in America is debating these issues too, and common sense is generally their guide. Thus a challenging party that represents a common sense approach to religion and state has the potential of overwhelming the numbers making up the Christian Right of the GOP, in my estimation, having lived for many years in small communities in Missouri and Texas.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2005 04:31 AMAs a Christian man, I’ve never been able to understand the desire of many Republicans to break down the “separation of church and state” barrier. Perhaps it’s just that I understand that our government is run by precident, and that laws don’t give power to just one party.
Everything from gay marriage to prayer in schools to “one nation under God” in the Pledge lead to the same question — should the federal government be making religious decisions for its people? It’s not just a question of whether Bush should have that power — he won’t be in office forever. Personally, the idea of giving that type of power to people like Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, or John Kerry just scares the hell out of me. The Republicans aren’t going to be in power forever, and the laws that give them increased authority today will give the Dems increased authority tomorrow.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 8, 2005 07:19 AM“It is nice to see libs reminiscing about the past.”
And now I am considered a liberal.
What a country! LOL!!!
AP, David, Adrienne and Ann
Sorry you all, I have been off line for 4 days and have gotten lost on here. I know I posted to each of you last week and would like to apologize for not getting back to your answers. I am searching and trying though or I may just begin anew. Thanks for all your posts.
You bring up religion in our schools. All legal issues aside, my reason for not wanting religion in the schools is one I have never heard any one say. I think partly because most of the countries schools have very little diversity. My children’s school on the other hand is in a wealthy suburb of Detroit where 50 percent of the kids are Christian, 20 percent Jewish, 15 percent Muslim, 3 or 4 percent Hindu and 2 or 3 percent Buddhist. Can you guess why I want religion to stay out of schools?
Again, setting aside the legal aspect, my reason for wanting religion out of schools is simple, if you allow one you must allow them all. When it comes to educating my children the educators seem to have a hard enough time with reading and math, there is no way I can trust them to handle the complexities of 5 separate religions.
I see the people arguing for prayer in school, creationism, ten commandments, etc. and think these people live in rural all Christian areas. I wish they would think this through, do they want Muslim calls to prayers over the school loud speakers. Allow one; allow all somebody needs to drill this into their heads. They are out of touch with a portion of America that is not all Christian.
wisevil
Yes, people who are isolated with only their kind conceive of the country as homogeneous and like themselves. This leads to all kinds of political mischief like we saw in the last two elections. You can predict voting trends by population density. It also leads to facile belief systems: “Problems that don’t afflict me or my friends don’t exist.” “We’re all affluent enough to take care of our own in case of disaster or illness.” “What happens on TV is an accurate reflection of reality.” “Poor people are just lazy or dumb.” “We are all the same religion.” or even “All religions are the same.” “So what’s the problem with the government making laws respecting the establishment of religion?” they ask. Your arguments are based in reality, theirs are based on appearances. We need leaders who will lead and not merely take advantage of such people’s misperceptions. I don’t think the current crop has that integrity.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at February 8, 2005 02:59 PMIt is my belief that most spiritual Christians are Democrats and most religious Christians are Republicans.
Wisevil, can you elaborate on the difference between “spiritual” and “religious”? I’ve heard people say exactly the opposite before, so I assume they had very different ideas than you do of what those terms mean.
Posted by: Gandhi at February 8, 2005 08:56 PMGandi,
Spiritual adj 1: concerned with or affecting the spirit or soul; “a spiritual approach to life”; “spiritual fulfillment”; “spiritual values”; “unearthly love”
Religious adj 1: concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church; “religious texts”; “a member of a religious order”; “a religious man”; “religious attitude”
It is my belief that the Spiritual follow their soul.
The Religious on the other hand follow their church, temple, or mosque.
The Spiritual trust their soul to tell them what is right and what is wrong.
The Religious look to their church to tell them what is right and what is wrong.
The Spiritual allow their soul to speak to them.
The Religious need the church to speak to them.
I am a Christian who attends my church every week. Aside from the fulfillment my soul receives, I love the people and conversation at the end of service because it allows you to get to know your fellow church members. In my church there are the Spiritual and the Religious. I have attended a church since childhood; those of you who have done the same should have an idea of what I am speaking of. I am not saying they are bad Christians, far from it; they just haven’t made that true spiritual connection with their soul. They care more about what the Church says then what their soul says. I have sometimes described it as a blind devotion to the Church. Blind devotion to God is a good thing, and God guides the soul. Blind devotion to the Church can be a bad thing, man runs the Church with hopefully the guidance of God, but the history of the Church shows, man gets lost often.
Posted by: wisevil at February 9, 2005 05:06 AMHere’s the problem with this, Wisevil - almost every Christian whom I know (and most of them are Republicans) would refer to himself as being “spiritual, not religious”. If those of your denomination would say the same, then clearly our two groups are speaking two different languages. I suggest that there needs to be a balance in understanding the values of both “spiritual” and “religious”, and for the sake of discussion I will use the definitions that you supplied above.
It is my belief that the Spiritual follow their soul.
I’ll assume for this discussion that the word “soul” is equivalent to the word “conscience”. The proper formation of a conscience requires some belief in an absolute; a conscience has no value in a field of moral relativism. Here’s the catch: the church (with its establishment of “religion”) is where we get that absolute.
The problem with absolute morality is that people can stop thinking for themselves, and accept litergical tradition as the moral standard. They forget that the absolutes were put there by a “spiritual” person’s interpretation of what those absolutes should be. So there needs to be a balance. If we have a society of “religious” people who don’t think for themselves, it’s the same as a society of robots. If we have a society of “spiritual” people who follow whatever whim happens into their heads, we have anarchy. Both extremes are equally bad.
It is important to remember that it’s the church - with all its benefits and flaws from established religious practices- that has kept Christianity alive over the centuries. “Free thinkers” have brought reform to the church when it was needed - for example, Martin Luther in the Reformation - but it’s those who faithfully attended meetings every Sunday that kept the system going. I wonder what Martin Luther would think if he walked into a Lutheran church today.
Because you attend a church meeting every week, you have an appreciation for religion. Although you haven’t said it, you’ve implied that there needs to be compromise. But don’t think that one denomination of Christians thinks for themselves and another does not. I’m tired of hearing that “54 million people were stupid enough to vote for Bush”. I’ve only been here a week, and anytime I make a post in the Democrat/Liberal section, I get comments about dim-bulb Righties who are paid to regurgitate the party line. I questioned your statement in my previous post because it seemed you might be echoing that line of thought.
Posted by: Gandhi at February 9, 2005 01:40 PM“As a conservative, there are a quite a few high spots in this great country’s history … DROPPING A FEW NUKES ON JAPAN …”
Are you serious? That’s sickening.
Posted by: Ingrid at February 9, 2005 06:03 PMGandhi,
The Religious believe they are Spiritual, they are usually unaware they lack the deeper spirituality.
Comparing my conscience to my soul? I have never been concerned with my conscience being saved or standing in judgment before God.
Honestly this is between you and your Clergy, if you don’t get it, well that’s okay. I’m not debating our beliefs. Most of what you said in your prior post seemed to me to be ramblings of some one who is still working on it. This is not tangible. Like I said, that’s okay; you will get it someday.
Gandhi,
One more thing.
You stated:
“It is important to remember that it’s the church - with all its benefits and flaws from established religious practices- that has kept Christianity alive over the centuries.”
Are you serious?
Jesus Christ, his beautiful life and his tragic death are the reason Christianity has survived for centuries.
Folks, let’s try to tie the topic back into the politics and political future of America, shall we. There are plenty of other sites to debate religion itself. This article is about Church and State, and their degree of separation, and specifically the influence of the religious right on domestic and foreign policy representing a minority of Americans with regard to some of their issues.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 10, 2005 12:27 AM
