bullshit
Dixie_Rebel said:
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Here is an e-mail forward I got.... I think it pretty much speaks for itself.
Ok since this is obviously a plug for mixing religion and government in the US, I will take the position that such a mixing of church and state is path to disaster.
An interesting thing to consider is that democracy is basically rule of the majority, the system of government in the US and hopefully much of the world, but is to prevent a tyranny of the majority that would jeopardize the minorities right to freely participate in society and governance.
Lets consider those many times when people have been persecuted not only because of their race, color or nationality, but also because of their ideas. For example just about every national minority that has come to the US has, at one point or another, suffered discrimination. Blacks have long suffered this, so have hispanics, to a lesser extent Asians and Middle Easterners. But before that you had WASPs against Catholic Irish, Catholic Irish against Italians, etc.
Ideas- people have been persecuted for being catholic, practicing Islam, various sects from the West Indies, for being communists or anarchists. As a member of the Mormon faith, your personal history was one of persecution (thus the pilgrimage to Utah). Even the word Mormon is related to the Latin Mormos which I believe means fraud (or so I was told) and the faith has been criticized for its content.
The notion of free speech means that people should be allowed to express their opinions openly, that the market place of ideas should rule and that government should generally stay out of it.
That freedom of ideas also means the right to be free of government intrusion as to ideas, or advocacy of what ideas should be held. Whether you believe in God or not, should not be a governmental concern, nor should the government advocate faith over non-faith.
There is also an idea of the right to raise a family as you will, including what faith you should raise your children, if you want them to be raised with a faith.
Now this is a country that is overwhelmingly protestant, and increasingly right-wing and fundamental (and even populist). Do you, as a member of a minority faith, want more religion in government? I'm catholic and I can honestly say I don't.
This is not to say that religion doesn't have good ideas, or that the morals that the church advocates aren't good and righteous. If you are religious great. If you want to advocate your faith, fine. That's what your bible says.
We live in a judeo-christian culture, a culture that transends the ideas of any particular faith but embraces all their general notions. Why, because that reflects the ethics and values of the people, and those ethics and values should find resonance in our political, legal, and moral ideals. Generally speaking its a pretty good system.
But Max Weber told us nearly a century ago that the rise of modernity was a rational process, and that religion is inherently irrational. Mix the two, and bad things begin.
God might be divine and pure, mankind is not.
We have plenty of experiences with charismatic leaders taking power through the use of religion to justify their rule. We have plenty of cases of religion being used as an ideology of repression. There is a big history of this. And its not just in Europe or the East.
Trust me, as a Catholic, you don't want your church to become caught up in politics. Rather, the best place for church is in a civil society where the morals and values of that church can be utilized to campaign for better, more moral government, which remains secular and therefore protects the rights of all people to practice as they wish (or not).
Dixie_Rebel said:
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11).
>
Billy Graham, one of the most successful religious leaders. Who was the one who said it was because our society was corrupt because of homosexuals?
I thought it was 19 middle easterners (15 Saudis) and not 19 flaming homosexuals that flew those planes into the buildings.
Dixie_Rebel said:
>Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.
Despite the fact that more americans are going to church now than in the history of our country. So while God might be out of our government (although the motto is "in God we Trust"- notice how it doesn't say in "Man we trust") and despite the fact that our schools still teach basic judeo-christian values, perhaps we should all be listening to tapes of Billy Graham?
Dixie_Rebel said:
>And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"
One might use similar logic and say that, since more americans are going to church now than ever, and since most are protestant, maybe it wasn't that God wasn't listening but maybe we were talking to the wrong guy.
What absolute Bullshit.
Dixie_Rebel said:
>In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.
Yet know prayer in school gets the same rights as secular after-school activities.
But wait, isn't Sunday the day for worship in most faiths? Isn't a full day enough?
Or maybe we should skip math, science, history and all those other subjects and be like those religious schools they have in Pakistan where all they get to learn is the Koran?
Oh wait, isn't that were terrorists come from?
>
Dixie_Rebel said:
>Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school .... the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
And of course without the bible we would be morally lost, without a moral compass?
What, are we so stupid to assume that the mere non-faith in a religion also makes us immoral? Can one be atheist and agnostic and still moral (in a judeo-christian way)?
>
Dixie_Rebel said:
>Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
>
Poor Dr. Spock! Even the guy who gets the credit for telling parents they should be loving to their children cannot escape from the fearful rhetoric of the Christian right.
Ironic, that the guy who got parents to stop beating their children, of teaching parents to cuddle and hug their children, to be nurturing and gently and not be stern and abusive (and thus miss out on child abuse), gets a bad rap because he's a scientific expert that is ungodly?
Why is there anti-intellectualism? Because it's perceived by some as anti-God.
The road to hell is paved with such good intentions.
>
Dixie_Rebel said:
>Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. The school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued (there's a big difference between disciplining, touching, beating, smacking, humiliating,kicking, etc.). And we said OK.
Don't know about you but I remember hearing about teachers that slept with their students too. Frankly, I think they should hang the fucker. And this isn't just in public schools either- although there's probably more oversight in public school.
Frankly, I think there should be legal restraint on a teacher's ability to physically touch a child. If I had 8 year old girl, who misbehaved in school, I'd like to know that there were legal sanctions that kept the 250 pound teacher from going ape shit on her with a ruler, or which gave the same teacher second thoughts before touching her in an intimate way.
Dixie_Rebel said:
>Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents. And we said OK.
Well the last time I checked on this, the law said that the girl can go to a judge and get what's called a judicial bypass which I would imagine would be more intimidating for a young girl. Such a bypass might be important if the girl has been a victim of incest or is the victim of child abuse.
Generally the law holds that a teenage girl can get an abortion only if she has a judicial bypass or parental consent.
Of course some folks might say that's tough that she got rapped by her dad, but that doesn't mean that she shouldn't bring the baby to term. But that's easy to say when its not your body that has to bring the kid to term. Oh and then what do you do afterwards? Give it to adoption? Let Dad have it?
Dixie_Rebel said:
>Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school. And we said OK.
Not exactly. You see budget decisions get voted on. There is an elected school board that represents, ideally, the ideas of the community. Which means there is public oversight. If you don't like the ideas, go to the school board.
There is also that danger of AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases to be considered. Or the fact that where one does have effective sexual education one usually sees fewer teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
But then these aren't Christian values, the right values. Perhaps we should do what Nancy Reagan says "Just say No!" Which is easy for a senior citizen to say when she probably can't remember sex, but might get to critical insight by consulting her astrologer.
Dixie_Rebel said:
>Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs. Agreeing with them, we said it doesn't matter to me what anyone, including the President, does in private as long as I have a job and the economy is good. >
Frankly, consider that our current president was strongly supported by the Christian right and that we have high unemployment and a growing number of homeless families that have lost their homes because they lost their jobs. I think it would be better if we were more concerned about how our economy is doing, so that first we can have homes, and then the Christian right can be concerned about what goes on in there.
I am also looking forward to the Christian Right guide to healthy sex which does not include any acts of sodomy. Remember kids, sodomy is anything but good ole missionary position. Words like Fellatio and Cunnilingus are from THE DEVIL!!!!! And if she gets on top, she goes to hell!!!
I don't think we should enforce prejudice against homosexuals. I don't think the law needs to know if my wife and I have a kinky relationship. I think the government's job should be about doing the functions that the state is supposed to.
(1) external defense against outside powers
(2) maintenance of political order and peace internally
(3) economic development.
Everything else is distraction.
Dixie_Rebel said:
>Then some of our top elected. Then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of nude women and call it wholesome, down-to-earth appreciation for the beauty of the female body.
>And we said OK.
Considering the amount of litigation that Hustler Magazine went through, and the problems that Playboy, Penthouse and other mags have had to deal with, only a complete idiot would think that anyone thinks that porn mags are "wholesome family entertainment."
Anne Graham apparently lives on Mars. Or maybe she's just trying to spin a vision of the world that is corrupt (or just doesn't live up to dad's vision).
For example, under current law state's can not only allow girls to wear pasties, furthermore they can allow states to wholly forbid sales of "adult" material, adult theaters and other adult entertainment based on what's called the secondary effects doctrine.
Love to see what would be her reaction if she goes to the MET, or MOMA. Renaissance Nudes? Oh for shame.
How about that statue of David?
Oh remember when the English went through these types of sexual taboos during the Victorian period. The general feeling of history was that kind of conservativism kind of sucked.
Dixie_Rebel said:
>And then someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of nude children and then further again by making them available on the Internet. And we said OK, they're entitled to free speech.
>
Now that's bullshit. What is not forbidden is situations where adults who look like children pose, or where there are computer generated images of children on the net. Why? Because if no children are harmed then no one was victimized.
Unless of course you want to control what comes through the internet and can be viewed, which means that you want to control what we think.
Lets see, right-wing, fundamental, populist, with a leader elected by special interests, and now they want to control our mind too?
Perhaps there is good reason for the Europeans to be worried about a US empire.
>
Dixie_Rebel said:
>Then the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. Let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes. And we said it's just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead.
>
Yes, teletubbies advocates rape, illicit sex, violence, profanity. You see what you've been missing?
There is a difference between what is seen during the daytime, or should be seen in the day-time and what is at night. There is also a rating system.
I agree, Jerry Springer is really awful.
But shouldn't this be a responsibility of parents? Shouldn't they decide what their kids should watch?
It can't be their responsibility- you see because both parents are working.
Why are both parents working? I mean, back in the 1970s we had one parent at home and one at work, right? Well we also had a bigger middle class back then too.
Somehow between now and then, the purchasing power parity of Americans fell, both parents had to work just to keep up (and kiss that social safety net goodbye). So where one parent could stay home and raise kids, now parents are often working two jobs.
But that's an economic problem, right? Yes, which makes you wonder why no one is asking why that economic problem isn't being addressed.
Yet plenty of self-righteous assholes feel the right to tell us that our society is fucked up because its morally decayed. Ok, but why? It's not because we ain't going to church, maybe its because our economy isn't what it should be.
And lets be honest, being a PR guy for God is good business.
For example, does anyone know what the net worth of your leading televangelist is these days?
Is it not interesting that the right wing is composed of both the religious populist right (led by some very well-off spokespeople) and big business?
Frankly, I would prefer if all these folks stopped telling us how fucked up our society is and fix our economy so that we can have one parent home who can take care of the kids, like in the good old days.
Dixie_Rebel said:
>Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill >strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
>
>
See above.
Dixie_Rebel said:
>Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I >think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."
>
So send your dollars to Billy Graham Inc. After all, being a PR man for God is Tax Exemt!!!!
Maybe we pay too much attention to the people who sow bullshit about our moral corruption, and not enough time planting for good long-term investment in our future.
But funding schools, public health, social mobility? That would cut into tanks, planes and aircraft carriers.
>
Dixie_Rebel said:
>>Are you laughing?
>Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they WILL think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
>
>Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in!
Probably no one wants to forward it because most people don't want to advertise that they are idiots.
It is important for all of us to be skeptical, if not in our pursuit of faith, than of those who would lead us. There are many avenues to empowerment, but one of the historically most effective has been through faith and religion. It is not coincidence that virtually every war effort has been clothed in a banner of ideology, usually religion. The Germans thought God was on their side as they massacred the Jews, as they shot at the Americans coming up the beach at Normandy, as they fought to the last man against the Russians. But remember, God was on our side in that one. Right?
The world is full of people who preach for God, and make a buck or find power. The bible warns of false prophets. So does history. But sometimes people don't see it.
Lets take a look at the religious right overseas. For example, few know that the missionaries were used by Liberian President Talylor to help sustain in power in exchange for a piece of the Liberian economic pie. More known is Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart's involvement in helping former President Mobutu to stay in power in what used to be called Zaire, and now is the Democratic Republic of Congo.
In exchange for diamonds, timber,, gold and power generation, Robertson's African Development Company and his Operation Blessing (which operated a 50,000 acre farm near Kinshasa) Robertson helped campaign to help keep Mobutu in power. Foreign based religions were used to undermine indigineous religions that might have been used to put pressure on Mobutu's government.
Swaggart was known to suggest that the downtrodden should accept their lot in this life and expect relief in the next (while Swaggart banked his profits). Robertson was also involved in the diamond business in Sierra Leone.
But least we pick on the religious right, others involved included Reverend Moon, the Jehovah's witnesses and other US Baptists and Pentacostal groups. See William Reno, Warlord Politics and African States (1998)
The problem with the US isn't religion. The problem might be too much religion. By over emphasizing the religious issues, like abortion, we are ignoring the bigger problem, that for 30 years the US has suffered a decline in the quality of life. We are, as a nation, not doing as well as our parents did.
It's not because God has abandoned us, but because we are not taking care of the things that are important.
