rlomba8204 wrote:
EDIT: Tammer, I think you are a good guy, but your constant bashing of religion is distasteful and, in my judgment, bigoted. I would suggest, before you continue to lump all those who believe in God into one camp -- "the uneducated" or "the fearful" as I am not sure what the appropriate insulting category would be -- that you take some of the time you spend trolling Youtube for stupid political clips to read Aquinas's Five Proofs or even to read excerpts from or the entirety of his Summa. I am not trying to convince you to believe in God or not believe in God -- it's your call and it's your life -- but one of the things that gets lost in all the fashionable bashing of Christianity and the Catholic Church is that there is a rigorous intellectual tradition that is often lost or somehow overlooked. Yes, certainly there are ignorant religious people but there are ignorant people in all spheres of life. I think if you read either of these pieces you would be better informed and your incessant criticism of religion -- I would think it not far off to call it hatred -- would soften a bit.
I am really done now -- you will not hear from me further on this thread. I only broke my own statement above because I had no intention of insulting Todd personally and had forgotten that he lived in one of the areas I mentioned earlier. So it was better to keep it going and avoid that misunderstanding in my judgment, because I respect him. And I am not trying to argue with you either, but rather give you a bit of a different perspective.
Ray, first of all you should probably know I've read Aquinas. And lots of C.S. Lewis (though you probably shouldn't get me started on the not-very-subtle anti-Muslim imagery in the Narnia chronicles--which I was able to pick up on at the age of 8), and St. Augustine, and others. I like you, but the defense of religion in and of itself is as tiresome to me as my language is to you. And I'll explain why:
When I discuss religion, I focus only on the effects of people who claim religion as their motivation in every day life. I comment on their actions, their statements, and (usually) the obvious discontinuity in their stated beliefs and the actions in question. That should make it immediately apparent that I don't have a problem with all religious people--in fact, the vast majority of religious people don't even trip my radar. It's the ones using religion for manipulation of others and those believers stupid enough to fall for it that are my beef. This clearly counts you out, but not those who, say, believe we should spend taxpayer dollars teaching Creationism in schools. It isn't about fashion, it's about observing what's happening in the nation and world and making an honest accounting of it.
Here's an example. My postulate, relevant to the topic of this thread: the "stupid people" on the right that are swayed by bigoted arguments are likely to consider themselves religious. That's a problem. Why do I say that? Because Barry Goldwater-type republicans wouldn't get worked up by the types of rhetoric I quoted in the posts above (note--I didn't have to go back more than a couple weeks to find plenty of examples of what I'd consider hate speech from leading Republicans). If you're curious, here's what Goldwater had to say about religion and politics:
Goldwater wrote:On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." (1981, Senate floor)
and
Goldwater wrote:Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. (1994)
The use of religiously-motivated wedge issues (gay marriage, abortion) and religious fear (terrorism) to gain popular support is a recent development, and one that should be reversed. Some people saw it coming. Look at today's Republican candidates: the Mormon isn't Christian enough, the other Mormon wasn't "conservative" enough, anyone who isn't vocally pro-life and anti-gay rights is discounted out of hand. That is exactly what Goldwater was predicting. No compromise. Note that none of this headline-making rhetoric even touches on traditional conservative principles of fiscal control and small government; it's all about social control. That is the new religious republicanism.
Now, it's not just Christianity. Look at women's rights. The abuses of radical Islam are well known: in Saudi Arabia, women can't drive, can't be seen in public with a man who is not her husband, must cover her body and head, etc. It's disgusting. In tribal Pakistan, a woman who is raped is either killed or forced to marry her rapist. Even more disgusting. Of course, Santorum would send us down a similar path, saying that if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, she should "embrace that gift from God." And the Jews don't get off scot-free, either:
an 8-y.o. girl was spat on and called a whore because supposedly adult men didn't like how she was dressed. (I hate to reference the Daily Mail, but it was the first hit on the article and I've spent too long typing this already.) Similar things have been reported in Hasidic neighborhoods in Brooklyn. So one can easily support the argument that extreme viewpoints in all major religions are working hard to turn back the clock on women's rights and to justify abuses of women. That isn't acceptable to most of us, and when I see religious extremism bubbling to the top in leading candidates, you can bet your ass I'll stand up and say something about it. This isn't Christianity as it was taught by Jesus or meant to be practiced; this is the abuse of religious language to gain support for horrible policies, discriminatory policies, and divisive policies.
That is the faction in this country that is anti-science. That is the faction that is anti-education, that wants to cut funding for research but increase funding for teaching of creationism. They want to cut funding for birth control and preventive care but increase spending on wars against "them." That is the group that I am speaking out against, over and over, because they are actively destroying the things that made America what it is--religious FREEDOM, not tolerance, advancement by public education, and world-leading civil liberties for all citizens, not just straight white males. They claim to speak for you, Ray, and you should be just as offended as I am, if not more so, rather than defending them because they are "religious."
I can write just as much about my issues with the democrats--it can be summed up very quickly as "all-out assault on privacy and personal liberty via the TSA, FISA, and PATRIOT act," but those are all supported by Republicans as well (Ron Paul excepted), so there's no winning on that front unless we as a country can agree to throw out every bastard in Congress at once to send a message. Similarly, the corruption in Congress is rampant on both sides of thei aisle. But that's a different argument for a different day.
Cheers, I'm done here.
Tammer
