Lose the Faith

Concerning spanking the author opined: “In other words, hit ‘em while they’re young and they’ll suffer your sermons all life long.”

Reading stuff like this makes me smile. Obviously written by a naive but well intentioned fellow.

I wonder what the differences in liberals and conservatives really are regarding child rearing? Is it like the old saying: “one is a liberal until one gets mugged and then becomes a conservative”?  Is there any truth to the thought that “a young conservative has no heart, an old liberal has no brain”?

Has it really become true that conservatives are the ones advocating individual responsibility and liberals are attempting to demolish such harsh consequences and subject all of us to a nanny state (where we will be safe and secure (at least financially) but have less freedom to make our own decisions)? Similar to how the schools were “dumbed down” in order to preserve a false sense of high self esteem for all (thankfully where i live, students that do not do the work FAIL)?

Just a thought, only a thought.

Father of 4 said:

“. . . Is it like the old saying: “one is a liberal until one gets mugged and then becomes a conservative?’. . . “

Only if it’s also true that getting mugged makes you a bigot.

Lefty,
Are you equating being conservative with being a bigot?

While no one party can lay claim to having a completely homogeneous contingency, it is no secret to which party the Democratic defectors fled after LBJ’s Civil Rights Act was enacted.

What does being conservative have to do with being a bigot? (Or is this just a “throw away” comment, like “blacks are lazy” or Jews are “blue eyed devils” or whites are “all racists”?)

Say what you want about Christianity - after all, many or most non-Christians in the US and Europe feel free to openly be disrespectful of it.

BUT. I have yet to see rioting and DEATH because some fool may or may not have flushed a bible. Talk about backward morons! Killing people over a supposed insult to a BOOK. Makes our (Christian) kooks look positively sane. . .

there is a tyranny imposed by the extremes of both sides of the political spectrum with regards to deviation of the accepted dogma of the moment.
so, what is a bigot?  one thing is certain, the crackers driving around these parts, waving the Stars & Bars and half hoping to be able have a drag race Texas style aren’t putting Dennis Kucinich bumper stickers on the tailgates of their old Chevy’s.  you decide.

---troubled in the Heartland

So if you support Dennis Kucinich you automatically aren’t a bigot? Even if you feel free to ridicule others whose beliefs are differnt from your own (conservative Christians, for instance)?

Finally a litmus test we can all understand.  :)

Troubled,
Huh?

no, it just means the likelihood that the driver of some Z71 you encounter on the highway, flying the Confederate flag with a set of red tinged chains hanging off the bumper, isn’t someone who supported the congressman from Cleveland.
It’s this type of thing:  All woodpeckers are birds.  All birds aren’t necessarily peckers---if you get my drift.

---troubled in the Heartland

Father of 4 presents, as republicans often do, a straw man he can easily knock down, but it’s a false choice. Republicans only advocate for individual responsibility when it applies to people who work for a living. They require no such thing from corporations that pollute the environment, avoid US taxes, embezzle their employess pensions, create enegy shortages they can profit from, or rip off the pentagon for billions. And liberals do not favor a nanny state as much as an econmomy that works for all, not just the lucky few.
Also, while conservative does not a bigot make, it is fair to say that the republican party has opposed nearly all civil rights legislation passed in the last 40 years, and employs lots of tactics meant to appeal to racists and homophobes. Whether the republicans can still be called conservative is another matter.
And Mary, our own General Meyers, as well as Afghanistans president Karzai have said that the rioting had little or nothing to do with Newsweek’s Koran story. 
Finally, though I am a regular church go-er, I am embarrsed to self identify as “Christian” because of the despicable things that have been said and done by the likes of Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, and Randall Terry, to say nothing of our president and his supporters, which have given christianity a bad name indeed. I don’t want to be associated with these scum in any way. They are “christian” the way ketchup is a vegetable, and creationism is a science, that is to say, Not.

As regards our domestic condition, without the ‘nannying’ of the Civil Rights Act and similar legislation, too many places in this nation would still be chained to the nineteenth century.  I am not that old, but even I can recall a time when individuals of color would be ‘escorted’ elsewhere after ten o’clock at night---we’re not talking Alabama, this happened in districts in, and around, Los Angeles, California.  It is easy to get sucked up into the harangues of Rockwell and company when one has limited knowledge of the conditions and behaviour that made such legislation necessary.  With crackers still dragging strange fruit behind pickup trucks in places such as Texas and Missouri, it might be suggested that we’ve not sufficiently enough progressed to abandon those statutes.

Were the christian right to adhere to authentic Christian values, much of this discussion would be unnecessary.
Such is not the case, and that presents a dilemma to those of the christian right, for our present predicament really isn’t about religion. It is about money, conquest, power, and domination. Religion is merely a device to be exploited in that cause.
As has been said before, “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and like the other; or he will honor the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon (wealth).” --- Jesus Christ the Sermon on the mount

I, for one, am proud to proclaim my Faith.

Troubled,
Oh, I get it. “Rednecks” or “Crackers” *are* bigots and they don’t vote for Kucinich. Therefore, conservatives are bigots. Looooong stretch, with a post hoc fallacy, an unproven basis, etc., etc. Just the typical ‘people who don’t vote/act/think like me are inferior’ pitch.

A lot like your take on Christianity. “Christian who do not vote/act/think like me are *real* Christians, they are slaves to greed/whatever”.

I find the Left live in a more starkly black-and-white world than the Right.

Stump--

You are a sloppy reader. 
Let me repeat--"it just means the likelihood that the driver of some Z71 you encounter on the highway, flying the Confederate flag with a set of red tinged chains hanging off the bumper, isn’t someone who supported the congressman from Cleveland.
It’s this type of thing: All woodpeckers are birds. All birds aren’t necessarily peckers---if you get my drift.”
Subsets do not necessarily constitute a whole set.  Nothing absolute about that.  However, how many Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers are likely to spot at the next Klan gathering in Harrison, Ark. 
You convolute the take on Christianity, as well.  Pursuits in the interests of avarice, accumulation, and power are not consistent with the teachings of Christ---Hence the quote from the Sermon on the Mount.  Should you care to investigate further, you might discover that similar teachings are to be found in the; Vedas, Upanishads, and Bhagavad Gita of the Hindus; the Tao Teh Ching of the Taoists; the Dhammapada of Buddha; yes, even in the Holy Qur’an.  Were the peoples of this world truly faithful to the tenets of their beliefs, we would all be living in harmony.
Peace, my brother
Troubled in the Heartland

Rick Stump,

Not quite.  What I am saying is that there are the only two kinds of conservatives, the ignorant and the greedy (read: idiots and crooks). Bigotry would be one of the symptoms suffered by ignorant conservatives.

As Ken Brown cogently observed, Father of 4’s ham-handed, imagined, strawman is a common, tiresome tactic employed by conservatives that I prefer to characterize as the “false premise.” In order for a conservative to prevail in any political argument, he must first manufacture a false premise, a false reality in which his preposterous positions make sense only to those not able to recognize the pathetic tactic being employed and who are all to willing to be ignorant bigots.

So, if what Father of 4 said is true, isn’t it also true that conservatives are popultated, in large part, by victims of violence who live in state of fear and hate?  Isn’t that what it takes for the common man to become a conservative?  LOL.

“O let us live in joy, in love amongst those who hate!  Among men who hate, let us live in love.

O let us live in joy, in health amongst those who are ill!  Among men who are ill, let us live in health.

O let us live in joy, in peace amongst those who struggle!  Among men who struggle, let us live in peace.

O let us live in joy, although having nothing!  In joy let us live like spirits of light!

Victory brings hate, because the defeated man is unhappy.  He who surrenders victory and defeat, this man finds joy.

There is no fire like lust.  There is no evil like hate.  There is no pain like disharmony.  There is no joy like Nirvana.

The hunger of passions is the greatest disease.  Disharmony is the greatest sorrow.  When you know this well, then you know that Nirvana is the greatest joy.

Health is the greatest possession.  Contentment is the greatest treasure.  Confidence is the greatest friend.  Nirvana is the greatest joy.

When a man knows the solitude of silence, and feels the joy of quietness, he is then free from fear and sin and he feels the joy of the Dhamma (path, way).

It is a joy to see the noble and good, and to be with them makes one happy.  If I were able to never see fools, then one could be forever happy!

He who has to walk with fools has a long journey of sorrow, because to be with a fool is as painful as to be with an enemy;
but the joy of being with the wise is like the joy of being with a beloved kinsman.

If you find a man who is constant, awake to the inner light, learned, long-suffering, endowed with devotion, a noble man---follow this good and great man as the moon follows the path of the stars.”

THE DHAMMAPADA #15 JOY

Lefty,
Brilliant! Simply brilliant - “I am saying is that there are the only two kinds of conservatives, the ignorant and the greedy (read: idiots and crooks)”. Then - “Bigotry would be one of the symptoms suffered by ignorant conservatives”.

Bigot - a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Prejudice - preconceived judgment or opinion; an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

So, based on the definitions from good old Mirriam-Webster, Lefty and Troubled are prejudiced bigots. After all, Lefty is convinced that all conservatives are idiots and/or crooks. And Troubled can’t imagine that there are bigots who sit in art houses sneering at “ignorant rednecks”.

Nah, that can’t be right; after all, conservatives (who only see the world in black and white, I hear) are evil, stupid, or sheep because they don’t think like you do. Right?
Lefty, here’s a hint: maybe they disagree with you for legitimate reasons. Maybe, just maybe those ‘ignorant’ conservatives have sacrificed their own economic interests for what they perceive to be a greater moral purpose. After all, if a multi-millionaire Hollywood actor can offer to pay an extra $50,000 in taxes for ‘the greater good’, maybe a welder in Indianapolis can forgo a lower co-pay on his insurance for the same cause.

A bigot - one who falsely divides the world into “us” and “them”, where “them” are evil and to be feared or hated. E.g., “there are the only two kinds of conservatives, the ignorant and the greedy (read: idiots and crooks)” provides a perfect example of bigotry. Thanks for the timely example Lefty! :)

(Of course, in the “real world” there are honorable conservatives and liberals, honorable socialists and libertarians, etc. The problem that some (most?) have on both sides of the political spectrum is that they believe they have found “THE WAY”, and all others must be “idiots” or “crooks” or “anti-US” or something nefarious, or surely they would see the light. Typical black and white thinking by people who hold their beliefs very strongly, tantamont to religiously.)

Troubled,
So, now you can read minds? After all, you know “authentic” Christianity and judge the Right to be beyond its fold. How many did you survey to reach this broad generalization? Or do you just ‘know” the truth?

After all, your position assumes that the Christian right is, to a man, greedy and covetuous. Quite a stretch, especially considering the voting habits of Catholic priests under a vow of poverty!

Stump--

once again, you prove to be a sloppy reader.  let me repeat from above: “there is a tyranny imposed by the extremes of both sides of the political spectrum with regards to deviation of the accepted dogma of the moment.
so, what is a bigot? “
subsequent observations dealt with the political propensities of the extreme right.  certainly they are fuelled by such ‘essays’ as:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html
Myths of Martin Luther King
reminiscent of the 1960’s John Birch Society/American NAZI party attacks on Dr King

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/wilson7.html
Book review of The Real Lincoln
Justifying the succession of the Southern states
Lincoln was the racist and the South’s struggle was solely for states rights and that it would have sought a non-violent eventual end to slavery within the context of a Libertarian confederation.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson12.html

The Yankee Problem In America

http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/02-91.html
The Economics of Martin Luther King

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo82.html

An Abolitionist Defends the South

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north222.html
Fundamentalism’s Bloody Homeland for Jews

Stump--

again, subsets do not necessarily constitute a whole set.  for one supposedly so steeped in logic, you sure seem to have a lot of difficulty with that concept.

Stump--

you never did answer this:
“What do you think Lew is talking about in this quote:
“[Clarence] Thomas calls the segregation of the Old South, where he grew up, ‘totalitarian.’ But that’s liberal nonsense. Whatever its faults, and it certainly had them, that system was far more localized, decent, and humane than the really totalitarian social engineering now wrecking the country.” “

Brian,

Aren’t you glad you take the time to write a thoughtful piece on the evangelical question, only to see it fall under the avalanche of single-minded babble, utterly unrelated to the topic at hand?  Perhaps this reader comment site is a microcosm of why complex thought eludes both the left and right - it’s just not as viscerally gratifying.

Rocco of The Judean People’s Front

Part of the problem here is that a lot of people don’t understand the definition of “conservative.” Many of those now in power in Washington, along with the far right zealots who support them, are far, far from being conservatives. Many of those in all three branches of government are radicals with corporate interests. They have utilized the paranoia of much of the Christian right to support their agenda, while the religious promoters use the neo-cons to spread the “True Word” and erase the line of separation between church and state. In fact, a true conservative believes in maintaining the status quo, is rather more a “middle of the road” kind of person than an extremist, and has a strong desire to, um, conserve! Conservatism includes fiscal responsibility, environmental maintenance, and government moderation such as lack of judicial activism.

I am a lifelong liberal and proud to be one. The Microsoft Word (Microsoft - that bastion of liberal thought) dictionary defines “liberal” as “tolerant,” “progressive,” “generous,” and a whole list of other equally glowing terms. Being a conservative does not mean being a bigot, but being a radical often does. Those who state that their god is a true god and others are idols, who believe that homosexuals are deviants, who promote the idea of a theological nation with Christianity as its ideal, and who find that the greatest uniter is a common enemy are bigots. The notion that poor people are poor because they deserve to be - maybe god didn’t like them as much - or that the only way to make a better country is through survival of the economically fittest may not be an indicator of bigotry, but it surely leads to the rich getting richer and the poor and unfortunate being oppressed. Labels are not a good choice for discussion, and name-calling and nastiness are among the factors that prevent us from finding out what those among us who disagree with us truly believe. (It’s really hard not to do that. I had to go back through my text and remove words like “wingnuts” from my discussion. Not good.)

Finally, anyone who has read George Lakoff’s informative book “Moral Politics” (as opposed to the somewhat repetitive and shallow “Don’t Think of an Elephant") will get a picture of what liberals really believe about child rearing, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a “nanny state” and everything to do with finding intelligent, compassionate, and nurturing alternatives to physical punishment. My father - also a liberal and strong disciplinarian - used to say, “If you have to hit your kids, you aren’t smarter than they are and you shouldn’t have them.” Corporal punishment is a quick fix that, in the long run backfires almost every time. It risks engendering a multitude of negative responses that are likely to be carried into adulthood. The current anti-government attitude (that somehow avoids being seen as non-patriotic) among the so-called conservatives-but-really-radicals may well be a result of resentment of authority begun in childhood.

Rocco--

“Blessed are the cheesemakers”

I agree with the comment that this discussion has deteriorated into something other than a response to the thoughtful and well-written article that instigated it.

Being a non-Christian in Christian America has given me a different perspective from moderate, well-meaning, and even liberal Christians. I am somewhat offended at the current trend of ongoing attempts to bring religion into the discussion of politics. I greatly admire Jim Wallis and certainly respect his point of view. However, I do not agree with it. I believe that it is time to remove religion from the discussion and bring in science, economics, historical accuracy, social justice, and a certain amount of pragmatism. There can be, in fact, morality without religious overtones. There is sprituality without religiosity. America has traditionally not only supported freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. Anyone who doubts that should read some of Thomas Jefferson’s writings or those of Mark Twain and many other great Americans.

Although I have little connection to or need for a concrete concept of a higher power or certainty of what happens after death, I do not denigrate religious faith or any kind of spirituality. I believe in the existence of many, many powers that cannot be, or have not been, perceived by our senses. However, I don’t want to be subjected to what should be a very personal relationship of an individual with his or her god, his or her spiritual fullfillment. Bringing religion into the public arena somehow cheapens it. And it does seem that the more extreme the beliefs (far-right Christianity, fundamentalist Muslims), the more pressing it seems to those who believe them to force everyone else to comply. Perhaps it makes it easier to continue to adhere to the strictures of inherently illogical or unlikely dogma if everyone believes the same thing.

It has been said that the difference between believers and non-believers is that the non-believer doesn’t care what you believe. This is true for me insofar as what they believe does not trample on my individual freedoms.

LeeAnn certainly has a point: “Many of those now in power in Washington, along with the far right zealots who support them, are far, far from being conservatives.”

Remember, a child of privilege, GW never even bothered to visit Europe before becoming president. He was a virtual isolationist. I doubt anyone could have credibly seen GW engaging in wars to spread democracy prior to 911 (i am not putting a value judgement on whether any of this is good or bad, just establishing where we were in early 2001). Such a policy is far from conservative! It may become the greatest thing the US ever did (far exceeding the Marshall Plan) or it may lead to the eventual downfall of the US superpower (gonna happen sometime, sooner or later), time will tell. But definitely NOT conservative. . .

GW has become one of the most radical presidents in US history. Personally, i hope it all works out and believe that it may (there is lots of reason for optimism AND lots of reason for pessimism as well). From my point of view, once the dice have been rolled, all one can do is hope for the best.

Margaret wrote,

“While no one party can lay claim to having a completely homogeneous contingency, it is no secret to which party the Democratic defectors fled after LBJ’s Civil Rights Act was enacted”

And just what party would that be?

Would anyone here besides me see the irony of allowing abortion but criminalizing spanking?

LeeAnn’s father opined: “If you have to hit your kids, you aren’t smarter than they are and you shouldn’t have them.” Is it not true that by the time you spank your kids, you have ALREADY had them? Is this meant to advocate very late term abortion, say for 13 year olds? :)

BTW, at least statistically, parents are NOT “smarter” then their children. They do have more education and experience typically, however.

Do others here distinguish such subtleties as striking a child in anger versus spanking a child dispassionately for disciplinary purposes? Or is all spanking just violence and child abuse?

“We must all think for ourselves.”

“Yes, we must all think for ourselves!’

“Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric ?
Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."--- from George Washington’s Farewell Address

OK. Abortion was not the theme of my comments. Bringing abortion into the discussion about corporal punishment is not productive or pertinent. I believe that abortion is the removal of a few cells at the very least and an undeveloped fetus at the most, so, fatherof4, we will never agree on this point.

Obviously (or perhaps not so obviously to those who think in literal absolutes), my father’s comments were figurative and rhetorical, even glib. He did not promote executing children - quite the opposite.

Nitpicking at the use of the word “smarter” as opposed to “having more education and experience” is a red herring that adds nothing to the discussion. Again this seems obvious to the not-so-literally-minded and beside the point.

This kind of non-responsive response is exactly the type of thing I was talking about when I said that nastiness and name-calling interfere with understanding and communication (yeah - these were not my EXACT words, just implied, so find a way to pick that apart, too).

It is most unfortunate that by the time parents begin spanking their kids they already have them. My father’s comment was meant to that effect. Not that the children should have been aborted or that they should be taken away, but that it is most unfortunate that parents that can’t find a better way to deal with discipline chose to have children.

And yes, spanking is pretty much just child abuse and violence. It teaches children that might makes right, creates resentment, and has nothing to do with teaching children about consequences which are totally different from punishment.

Parents who believe that corporal punishment is the right way to deal with children generally believe in a “strict father” type of family values system. Those who believe in nurturing, finding fitting consequences for behavior, and disciplining through mutual respect believe in an equalitarian type of family vaues system. It’s not a difference in values and no values or discipline and no discipline.

I have two grown sons, both very productive, moral, and responsible members of society. I can’t say I never spanked them, but I always, always, always thought in retrospect that there was a better way. And it was seldom then and would be never now. I guess more experience and education continue throughout one’s life if one is lucky.

Are we perhaps a little defensive in our response to those who think corporal punishment is not such a great thing?

“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ? “---more from Washington’s Farewell

Natalie,

In a word, the GOP.  It is a documented fact that thousands defected from the Southern Democrats in protest of the Civil Rights Act, and that they became Republicans.  Not opinion here, fact.

That being said, it would be ridiculous to state that Republicans are by-and-large bigots.  I think bigotry has little to do with party affiliation.  And, that being said, I think that the political actions of the Bush Administration toward the poor, veterans, ill and elderly are as bigoted as one can get.  His budget for ‘06 greatly harms the groups mentioned above, as if they don’t matter, aren’t as important as the corporations he lavishes favor on.  The Bush Administration is clearly bigoted against the “have-nots”.

LeeAnn was on the money when she stated that there are few real Conservatives in Washington DC anymore.  I think we saw 7 of them stand up to the President the other day.  Let’s pray this is the beginning of GWB/Darth Cheney’s end.

Laslo, I did not mean to imply that the founders of our country were divorced from religion.  However, the references to a specific religion including Christianity, although they may exist, are very few and far between. There is no reference to Christianity in Washington’s address.

Compare Washington’s address with some of the anti-state-sponsored and organized religion in Jefferson’s writings.

I’m not quite sure what point your posting is supposed to make. Yes, some of the founders of the country believed in religious inclusion, particularly the idea that there is a higher power and morality from which we should not turn. But no where is it indicated that we should have a theocracy. There are just too many divergent points of view in religion, and Washington’s references to religion and a higher power are too generic to use them to promote Christianity as the rule of law.

Note that out of all the 10 commandments, only a very few have anything to do with our laws. Should we make it a crime to not believe in the Jewish god? Or to not honor your parents? Or should it be a crime to create art? Afer all the commandments dictate that no images of anything in heaven or earth should be formed. Hm. Maybe this is a matter of interpretation, in which case, that makes my case even better.

Perhaps I am taking your post the wrong way, and you are not attempting to use Washington’s words as a way of justifying the joining of church and state. We are on our way down the proverbial “slippery slope” and will crash if we are not careful.

To Mary concerning her comment that she has yet to see rioting and death because someone flushed a Bible down the toilet:

Christianity has caused a multitude of deaths for centuries. The crusades destroyed much of the middle east civilization.

In addition, perhaps you don’t remember the giant bruhaha over the artwork entitled “Piss Christ” a few years ago or the outrage among our Christian politicians that almost ended the funding of art in this country. Imagine if something of the nature of the flushing of the Koran had occurred at the hands of Muslims concerning the Bible.

The Koran incident is surely not what caused the riots, but the uncalculable damage done by US policy in the middle east and our unjustified invasion of Iraq.

LeeAnn,
No, the Crusades did *not* ‘destroy much of Middle East civilization’. The key locations of Muslim civilization at that time were Spain and Iraq/Iran. While communications were disrupted by the conquest of the Levant, that is about it. And it glosses over the fact that the Crusades were an attempt to *re* capture a fraction of the territory conquered by Islamic armies. The Dark Ages in Europe were not brought about by the collapse of the Roman Empire alone, but equally by the loss of the resource- and knowledge- rich Christian territories of Spain, North Africa, and the Near East by Muslims.

LeeAnn - your examples are well noted.  Christianity (or more accurately, a perversion of Christianity) in the middle ages did encourage killing. It kind of reminds me of how **mainstream** Islam is today. .  .(who knows, perhaps in a few centuries we will be the barbarians and they will be the civilized?)

Anyway, i am unaware of any mainstream Christian organization that encourages killing today (again in stark contrast to Islam). The closest thing that comes to mind are the nuts that kill abortion doctors. But these nuts are very far from the mainstream (you know, hate the sin but love the sinner, etc).

Have a fun day!

LeeAnn,
We seem to have a cognitive problem. There is a *VAST* difference between “My goodness! Government money allocated for art is being spent on performance pieces that are arguable not-art and inarguably offensive to many. Maybe we should end government subsidies of art. After all, that money could be spent on (welfare/tax cuts/etc.)” and “A book was ruined! Let’s burn down buildings and kill people! Oh, and ask millions of others to do the same!”
To make a relevant comparison, this is the difference between saying to your 16 year old son “So, you scratched the car. Maybe I shouldn’t let you borrow mine anymore and make you get your own” and “You scratched the car, huh? [Punch in the mouth]”.

Mary,
Which Christian group ‘encouraged killing’ in the Middle Ages?

One more time:

Rick, the riots were NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT caused by the flushing of the Koran down a toilet or the report thereof. They were caused because over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed by US forces including children and old people, because Iraq has been turned into a giant mess without sanitation or clean water and likely to remain so for a long time, because children are starving, because prisoners at several different sites have been tortured, humiliated, and killed by the US military and mercenaries, because our country has been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for longer than most Americans can imagine. The flushing of the Koran was a small incident in view of all of this, but perhaps the final straw.

After 9/11, one would think there might be some compassion for other countries that we have invaded and damaged. We lost 3,000 people on 9/11 - a terrible tragedy - but our overreaction, and to a country that was totally uninvolved in it brings the sarcasm of “A book was ruined! Let’s burn down buildings and kill people! Oh, and ask millions of others to do the same!” comment into the distinct realm of hypcrisy.

I have heard too many people who consider themselves to be conservative Christians talk about how we need to “bomb Iraq into oblivion” and how it’s “too bad that some civilians died, but most of them deserved it anyway” to think that there is no mindset among Christians to recommend killing. They just want other people to do it for them. I think we call these types “chicenhawks.”

And as for mainstream Christian organizations not recommending killing, I think killing abortion doctors counts. In addition, America has killed innumerable human beings to promote its corporate agenda. “Free market” is not quite a religion, but it’s coming close. We must be very careful about casting the first stone when we criticize what other nations and religions do or believe.

I admit that I don’t know a great deal about the history of the crusades and need to brush up on it. My understanding comes from numerous articles I have read on the subject, and not from history books.

I’m prompted to find out more, so thanks, Rick for the push.

Oh - and the Christian group that encouraged killing in the middle ages was the Catholic church. And of that I am quite certain. Not only of Muslims, but of witches and a wide variety of non-believers. The Inquisition is not a myth.

LeeAnn,
OK - if you don’t want to discuss the Koran, let’s diss beauty pageants. Remember the Miss World pageant where a commentator said “Mohammed himself would have been proud to marry a beautiful, educated woman like this?” and the results were 5 days of rioting and no less than 300 dead? Nigeria was the place, Muslims were the rioters, and the Christian minority were largely their targets. Over a throw-away comment like that.

Or how about the lethal riots about a tunnel in Jerusalem? Remember that? An archaeological gem, this subterranean tunnel from Herod’s time was a site for tourism for years (as matter of fact, I read about it in National Geographic in 1995). There was only one end open, though, because of the fear of Muslim violence. after the first peace accords were signed, though, the Israelis opened the other end so tourist might go to the Arab end and, maybe, buy something. The result? 15 dead Isarealis in the week of rioting following the opening of a door.

It is far too easy to continue.

More importantly, where were the lethal riots when Saddam gassed a village of Muslim Kurds? Or for any of the millions of people tortured, raped, and killed in Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc? Where are the fatwahs against the men who behead aid workers who feed those hungry Irawi kids? The calls for Jihad against the ‘insurgents’ who target Iraqi schools, Iraqi mosques, and Iraqi people?

Nowhere, that’s where. Outrage is saved for America, not for other Muslims, right? Right.

LeeAnn,
I can recommend some history books and primary sources - you need ‘em.

The Catholic Church instituted the Pax Christi in the Middle ages, forbidding war and violence on the sabbath. Within 400 years this extended from Friday to Wednesday, allowing fighting only in Thursday.

The Inquisition was not a myth - but it also has almost nothing to do with pop cultural concepts of what it was.

The Inquisition had no authority over non-Catholics. None. Nada. Didn’t care about them. At all. It only existed (and still exists) to examine *Catholics* and those who claim to be Catholics. Period.While it may make comments on the world, the Quaesitoris cared only for Catholics.

And here is something that even some of the Wicca books admit - the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition proclaimed that belief in witchcraft is superstition - in other words, the Inquisition made witch trials (which were almost always secular trials, not religious) *illegal* in the territory it had jurisdiction over. During the witch-burning panic that swept Protestant France in the late 1600’s people fled to Spain where the Inquisition would *protect* them from accusations of witchcraft.

Stumpy,

The more you write, the more of an ignorant, bigoted, conservative hypocrite you prove yourself to be.  Once again, your consrvative argument is based on a false premise, to wit, your definition of bigot.

big·ot Listen: [ bgt ] n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

So, the gravamen of bigotry is partiality.  Your argument instantly fails.  However, assuming, arguendo, that your definition is correct, you criticise liberals for doing what you are most guilty of, bigotry against both liberals and those you characterise as muggers.  You are a hypocrite.

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” - Abraham Lincoln

The Catholic Church created the Congregation of the Holy office to seek out and punish heretics.  It is sometimes called the Holy office.
From the time of Emperor Constantine (306-337), the teachings of the Catholic Church were regarded as the foundation of law and order.  Hence heresy was considered an offence against the state as well as against the Church.  For several centuries, Constantine and the rulers who followed him tried to stamp out all forms of heresy.
In the 1100’s and 1200’s, certain groups existed whose views did not correspond to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.  Chief among these were the Albigenses and Waldenses.  The Church regarded their activities as dangerous.  A tribunal to suppress heresy was founded in 1229, under the special direction of the Dominican order.  Later the Inquisition was established as a general court with tremendous powers.
The Inquisition operated chiefly in Spain, Portugal, and part of Italy. Ferdinand and Isabella made it the state tribunal.  They used it as a weapon against the Jews.  The Inquisition tried many crimes that would now be tried in the civil courts.  It was not abolished until 1834. 

Stump is as sloppy a historian as he is a reader.

Lefty,
Ah, the sweet balm of being enlightened. Not.

Lefty, the definitions I posted were cut and pasted from the Websters online dictionary, the first I found. and you will note that most definitions of bigot focus on their prejudice against a person, group, etc. You know, like ‘all conservatives are fools, etc.’ - like you think.

Note, as well, that I have until this post neer used the term mug, mugged, or muggers - you have confused me with someone else, pal. Way to go.

And let me just say that your attempt to deny being a bigot by claiming that being partial to your own ‘group’ is more more important than the ‘intolerence of others’. Face, it Lefty - you have admitted you are prejudiced against conservatives, this prejudice makes you a bigot. You can deny it with an “I’m rubber, you’re glue” chant, or you can own up to it and move on.

If one’s religion consists of one’s beliefs and values, then how can it ever be left out of politics? Whether it is aknowledged or not, every political argument is backed by a value system and belief, whether that belief is Judaism, Christianity or Atheism, etc… Religion can be omitted from the dialogue but all human beings have beliefs, whatever they may be, that guide their decisions, whether apparent or not. So what I’m saying is this: leaving religion out of politics is useless, it can’t happen. For better or for worse it will always be there.

Ryan,

could not agree more

---troubled in the Heartland

Stumpy,

C’mon.  You came to the defense of Mr. Father of 4 and adopted his false premise as your own.  As for bigotry, what’s the matter, you can dish it out but you can’t take it?  You’re a hypocrite.

And, you are a historical revisionist.  Let me provide you with some guidance from some, much wiser than you or I, who lived in a time closer to the majority of the crimes against humanity committed by Christians, in the name of Christ.

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legaends, has been blended with both Jewish and Chiistian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.” -John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!” -John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” -Thomas Jefferson letter to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

“Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a slaughter-house.” - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822

“Whence arose all the horrid assassinations of whole nations of men, women, and infants, with which the Bible is filled; and the bloody persecutions, and tortures unto death, and religious wars, that since that time have laid Europe in blood and ashes; whence arose they, but from the impious thing called religion. and this mostrous belief that God has spoken to man?” - Thomas Paine

Stumpy, your hands are too unclean to be heard to complain about the religious barbarism of others.  But then, you are an established hypocrite.

IMHO, it is getting quite counter productive, as well as boring, to see every article followed by reader comments which quickly devolve into name calling and have little or nothing to do with the article that preceded them. If we were all in a room together we would never dare speak like this to each other without coming to blows, but because we can remain anonymous and safely distant some of us fail to exersize common decency. Pretty discouraging. Please try to ignore, rather than jump in the muck with, those that intentionally provoke. Like talk show hosts, they need to provoke in order to prevent us from addressing the issues and thereby limit our progress.

Ken,

If you were talking about me, sorry, I did engage in name calling.  But, I think I had an worthwhile point to make as well.  I wasn’t just name calling for the sake of name calling.  I genuinely believe that the names I used were appropriate and true.

If you were talking about Stumpy, again, sorry, I will not allow his kind (hypocritical conservatives) to attack liberalism (in form or substance) without retaliating against him.

If you were talking about both of us, you will probably just have to ingore both of us.

I meant generally, we should try to raise the bar, unilaterally even. Some on the other side are reachable and open to new information, many are not and never will be, and no amount of dialogue will have any effect, so why play on their level? They can’t argue by themselves, only snipe, but when we engage them they win because they sidetrack us, use up time and oxygen in what, for us, is a futile exersize.
I see this tactic employed often on the talk shows, and even on occasion in arguments with my wife. I always lose those because she keeps changing the subject. Finally I get tired. Or I lose my temper and she seems like the reasonable one. Amazing. Of course, we make up, and make love. The republicans are doing something similar to the country but, to borrow one of their phrases, it’s more like date-rape.

Back to the subject at hand, as a member of an Episcopalian congregation, I could recomend the many essays or books written by Bishop John Shelby Spong for those interested in an intellectual, historical, and realistic look at scripture, the message of Christ, and how they are used for good and ill by our modern day Elmer Gantrys. Were Christ to come back today, it would be Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, Terry, and their ilk clamoring for his death.

Margaret,

I’m confused as to why “thousands” of segregationist southern Democrats would consider the GOP a suitable landing spot for their party loyalty.  After all, the GOP had just voted in significantly higher percentages than did the Democrats in both the house and senate for passage of the 1964 civil rights act, and their leader in the senate had made a passionate high profile appeal for its passage.  Not a single Republican participated in the filibuster of the act.  Historically, the Republican party had been responsible for the passage of virtually all civil rights legislation, while the Democrat party opposed it almost lockstep, at least up until 1964, and even then it was not exactly a party wide pet issue.

The people in congress lobbying for the racist point of view of all these supposed switchers were all Democrats, and remained Democrats, except of course for Strom Thurmond.  Why in the world would racists switch to the GOP, of all places? 

I would assume that if there was a massive realignment in party loyalty, it would be reflected at least a little bit in that of the people’s representatives.  Why is it that of all the people signing the Southern Manifesto in 1956 (all Democrats, BTW), none ever changed party to Republican, even well past 1964?  Why is it that of all the Democrats that voted against the CRA of 1964, none changed parties to the GOP, except of course for Thurmond? 

Why is that of the 10 Democrats that voted against confirmation of the liberal black Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court in 1968, none ever changed party affiliation to the GOP?  Why is it that only one Republican (Strom Thurmond), voted against him?  Where’s this realignment to the GOP based on race that you’re claiming?  Unrepentant Dixiecrats were never welcome in the GOP.  The Democrats unapologetically welcomed them back within their ranks time and time again.

Yes, it is ridiculous to state that Republicans are by-and-large bigots.  The historical record paints Democrats vastly more guilty of such.  The furthest thing from my mind upon switching to the GOP was race.  But upon learning of its superiority on the issue, I feel even more at home.

http://www.calpatriot.org/february03/erasing.html

http://tinyurl.com/e4xnf

Natalie,
The 1964 GOP Presidential Candidate, Barry M. Goldwater did vote against the 1964 Civil Rights
Act because he thought the two sections on so-called “public accomodations” and “fair employment” were gross violations of individual
rights. Strom Thurmond, one of the signers of
the 1956 Southern Manifesto, did switch to the
GOP that fall. That many Republicans lack the
guts to oppose so-called civil rights and patently
mediocre appointments like Marshall is not an
indictment of the opponents of the civil rights
movement but of the GOP’s basic cowardice.
They huff and puff and in the end nothing ever
changes, the whole New Deal-Great Society structure stays intact while some people debate
how many Dixiecrats became Repubs.
Frankly, a great many did which is the main reason
Repubs control the FedGov.
The solid Demo south has become the solid Repub
south.
The northern liberal Democratic Party has always been the main pusher for so-called civil rights
aided in the past by the Rockefeller Repubs,
who in 1964 were liberals and made up half of the GOP in the Senate.
Dirksen was bought off by LBJ on that bill.
Now the current idiot GOP Prez actually stated,
“When people hurt, government’s got to move.”
Maybe you could do something better than be a
GOP cheerleaders for bad old liberal causes.

I can’t believe it, I agree with Jack Barnes!

Natalie,

You have got to be kidding!  What the Bush Administration has done to push the poor further down the ladder to self-sufficiency is the biggest racism I’ve seen since the Civil Rights movement.  Here’s a nice link of what those who have been given the capital to run “faith-based initiatives” think of the Prez’s ridiculous budget:

http://www.ncccusa.org/news/15.03.05budgetrally.html

Racial diversity within the Republican party organizations across the South even as late as 1991 was noticeable by its near absence. Consistently, less than 5% of Republican county executive committee members were African-Americans, and black representation among the more important GOP county chairs was even smaller, reaching zero in five states including Mississippi (table 1). As the national and many state GOP parties desperate sought to attract more black support, a likely explanation for the dearth of African-American Republicans was the conservative image of the GOP. While Democratic parties in each southern state had significant liberal, moderate, and conservative wings, thereby accommodating everyone including liberals (such as many African-Americans), the only real diversity within the southern Republican parties was over just how conservative the party should be. Typically, about 40% of southern Republican party organization members regarded themselves as “very conservative” while 40% saw themselves as only “somewhat conservative.” Liberals and moderates generally comprised only one-fifth of the party membership (table 2; Hadley and Bowman, 1995).”

In reading this article, you can see that, although the Democrats had been the greater party of offense before 1965, their work to build an inclusive party far surpassed the attempts of the GOP.

“For Micklethwait and Wooldridge, the pendulum that swung leftward in the sixties would inevitably swing to the right. “All it took was for the Democratic Party to lurch to the left for the sleeping giant of conservatism to be awakened.” Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society “turned into a gigantic exercise in overreach.” With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white southerners began their slow but steady march toward the Republican Party. The Republican presidential candidate that year, Senator Barry Goldwater, one of only eight Republican senators to have voted against that measure, lost the presidential election but sowed seeds of the right-wing revolution.” - Robert Reich

So, if I were you, Natalie, I would worry about “feeling comfortable” in a party that build consensus through lies and deception, brakes the backs of the poor and lines the pockets of the wealthy.  Not a very flattering picture of you.

Jack,

You appear to be a knowledgeable sort with some insight into matters.  I’ve seen this posted around and have been wondering about it. 
No one else seems willing to follow-up. Since we find ourselves on the subject, maybe, as a presumed Libertarian, you could explain what is going on with this:
“[Clarence] Thomas calls the segregation of the Old South, where he grew up, ‘totalitarian.’ But that’s liberal nonsense. Whatever its faults, and it certainly had them, that system was far more localized, decent, and humane than the really totalitarian social engineering now wrecking the country."---Lew Rockwell

Many thanks,
Lazlo Toth

To respond to a tangential point raised upthread, one major reason why stories of Quran desecration led to riots is because Muslims don’t just regard it as a holy book, but as the actual words of the Almighty, God’s direct transmission of His Thoughts to Mohammed through an angelic channel. They accept the holiness of the Bible, but the Quran is in a class by itself for a believer. You’re not even supposed to handle it (nor the Bible) unless your hands are clean, and you’d never as a Muslim allow it to, say, be placed on the floor, nor even to be taken into a bathroom, much less be placed into a toilet. They take it REAL serious, even if most Muslims wouldn’t riot over it.

Lazlo, thanks for your comments.
I disagree with Lew Rockwell on the particular
issue that you brought up.
It seems to me that slavery by its very nature
has to be totalitarian. Now Rockwell has been
properly promoting a revisionist work on Lincoln
titled The Real Lincoln by Professor Thomas DiLorenzo of Loyola College in Maryland and
it totally shreds Lincoln’s rationale for the
Civil War, which had to do with Federal power,
not slavery. Lincoln was a literal dictator
during the War. So you can make the case for
southern secession since the states came together
to join the union, not vice-versa and you can make
this while totally opposing slavery or the subsequent post-reconstruction state segregation.
Now some knuckleheads on some of these forums
apparently believe that if you recommend a site
that you are thus endorsing everything on that
site. Hardly the case.
I disagree with Lew about abortion, open immigration and a few other issues too but
still find much good anti-war and anti-state
articles on his site.
Maybe Lew’s puzzling comment that you cited has
something to do with the much more advanced of
modern technology where Big Brother can be everywhere. Sort of like factory farming, it
has grown much more brutal to the creatures that
it kills because of the inhumane utilitarian
ethos governing that, see a recent cover in The
American Conservative by Matthew Scully.
But again slavery is indefensible.

“More than obligation, moderation, ordered liberty, or any of the other lofty ideals we hold, what should attune conservatives to all the problems of animal cruelty---and especially to the modern factory farm---is our worldly state.  The great virtue of conservatism is that it begins with a realistic assessment of human motivations.  We know man as he is, not only the rational creature but also, as Socrates told us, the rationalizing creature, with a knack for finding an angle, an excuse, and a euphemism.  Whether it is the pornographer who thinks himself a free-speech champion or the abortionist who looks in the mirror and sees a reproductive health-care provider, conservatives are familiar with the type.
So we should not be all that surprised when told that these very same capacities are often at work in things that people do to animals---and all the more so in our $125 billion a year livestock industry.  THE HUMAN MIND, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS MONEY TO BE HAD, CAN MANUFACTURE GRAND EXCUSES FOR THE EXPLOITATION OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. (emphasis by Toth) How much easier it is for people to excuse the wrongs done to lowly animals.”

---Matthew Scully FEAR FACTORIES American Conservative Vol.4, No.10

Lazlo,
Glad you looked it up, hope everyone reads the
full eight page article, also his book Dominion book is very good. Buchanan also excerpted from that in The American Conservative when it came out
two years ago.
I’m not a vegetarian yet but Scully’s writings
are very powerful and are food for thought.
(No pun intended.)

Didn’t have to look it up, I have already read it.
You and I appear to disagree on the nature of “the inhumane utilitarian ethos governing that...”.  I take it you are making an anti-state /big brother argument.  We might only agree only if you are suggesting that Big Brother is named George and presently brandishes the signature of John W Snow on his lower left side. 
Is not the statement “THE HUMAN MIND, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS MONEY TO BE HAD, CAN MANUFACTURE GRAND EXCUSES FOR THE EXPLOITATION OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.” meaningful to you?
Scully seems more critical of unbridled capitalism as anything else.  In the absence of some sort of state over-sight, what would you suggest to contain the beast in the case of the monolithic live stock industry?
---Toth

One view on the rise of the religious right in the US is that it is impossible to grasp without also understanding the sudden turn to neo-liberal economics and the onset of corportate globalization. The Republican Party and its corporate constituency were clearly unable to woe poor, white, southern voters with a message of neo-liberal economics that was clearly against their interest.  So, in time honored fashion, religion suddenly became an instrument of political power brokering for a new agenda that has little to do with the interests of the poor or even faith itself.  Millions of impoverished, frightened, angry, and poorly educated Americans rushed to vote for a party and a candidate in 1980 that told them that the decline of America was due to failed liberal policies and views and only a return to faith could restore our greatness.  After 25 years of mostly Republican rule we have two undeclared, pre-emptive wars, 45 million people who lack health insurence, a declining national median income, a $7 trillion national debt, a nearly $700 billion current account deficit, massive poverty and crime, a correctional system with over 6 million prisoners and parolees, and massive, unprecedented, job losses.  One could say Lord help us!!! What is more appropriate is to say that once again people were manipulated by hypocritical religious zealots for purposes having nothing to do with the national welfare!

Well put, Steve.  I think the phrase “impoverished, frightened, angry, and poorly educated Americans” fairly well describes the majority of the GOP constituency.  The rest would be Northeast bluebloods and Texas Oil Millionaires and such.  I find it simpler to boil it down to “the ignorant and the greedy.”

Hey, could be the title for the next prime time soap opera.

I have always though of religion in general as a “discourse model” or a way of conditioning secular thinking.  If one has ever wondered why strict adherents to the three great religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all given over to fundamentalism, extreme conservatism, radical intolerance, or even, violence, one has only to look at both the message and structure of these faiths.  In the first place, all are based on arrogant and egoistic narratives that are highly particularist and sectarian in the self-serving creation of good guys and bad guys.  This contrasts sharply with religions like Zen Buddhism that are shorn or any historic particularism and are based on truely universal principles such as harmony and balance.  The big three further develop absolutist doctrines of abstractified good and evil utterly disentangled from the material conditions of society and its development.  Such notions of good and evil decontextualize and essentialize morality outside the material reality of social relations, power inequality, class, and social conditions in a vague, transcendental, amorphous, manichean struggle of good vs evil.  These religions are filled with transcendental mystifications that absurdly link people, events, places, and things across vast spans of time in ways that are impervious to changing material reality and human subjectivity as if a vicarious connection between biblical times and the present is more determining of current events than the actual, relevant material reality and conditions.  Examples of this thinking are obsession with and abuse of biblical prophesy in explaining everything, fallacious perceptions based on dualism and historical ignorance such as the idea that Jews and Muslims have fought althroughout history when in fact they were great friends becoming enemies only with the advent of 20th century Zionism, and the self-serving and vicious villification of people based on past events divorced from modernity e.g. the Jews being held responsible for the death of Jesus.  Such religious modelling of modern though gives rise to intolerance, patterns of conspiricy mongering, and overall low levels of analytical ability.  As one would expect, religion is no guide to the real understanding of our modern world.

Steve,

I would respectfully disagree with your statement regarding religion being “no guide to the real understanding of our modern world”.  I find my faith and its history provides great and accurate insights into the motivations behind the actions occuring around me, both bad and good.  I understand that you don’t see that for yourself, but you see the world through a different set of spectacles, so to speak.  I am fine with that, each must find their own way.  But I just found that one statement a little broad.

Secondly, I am not an economist, so could you please explain what you mean by neo-liberal economics.  I am stunned that the GOP would enter into any action that contained the dreaded “L” word in it, and not like that TV show.  Thanks.

Margaret,

I know that it is to broad a statement to assert that religion can’t be a guide of a lens, so to speak, for understanding modern problems.  I only meant that traditional western religion has a kind of cognitive structure, that is, since it tends to be the first experience people have in their lives being taught about the human condition it tends to pattern the way people think and make sense of the world.  The three big religiions-Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-often tend to structure thought in one-dimensional, myopic terms through egoistic, self-serving narratives that seem to say “hurray for us too bad for them” and go on to dehumanize the “other” in simplistic terms.  The bible is full of explainations and depictions of reality that hinge on conspiricies, the transcendental influence of single individuals abstracted from any realistic social context, gross generalizations about “human nature”, and good old prejudice.  Much of what is in the bible including original sin legitimates harmful ideas like guilt by association. There are many instances in the bible where all are made impure by the actions of a few and are thus justly punished. People are taught cynicism in that humanity and hence its endeavors are evil and not to trust one another. They are taught to feel discouraged with politics and the idea of social change, e.g. Jesus’s admonition “my Kingdom is not of this world” and that hope for change is futile focus only on heaven. Jesus’s assertion that “the poor are always with us” is also a good example.  Religion also stresses rigid absolutes in place of reason.  It is thus that I seek more modern and humane paradigms.  With respect to “neo-liberalism” it is used to refer to “classical” economic theory stemming from thinkers like Adam Smith and Milton Freidman currently which stress free market solutions to social problems minimizing state intrusion of any kind.

Laslo,
In the case cited by Scully I do support governmental intervention solely because of
the staggering brutality involved, much in the
same spirit I’d support govermental intervention
to stop a human killer or sadist.
I’m not too impressed with that quote from Adam
Smith because you can make the argument that most
atrocities are rationalized by the altruistic ethic of protecting people from themselves or
saving someone with someone’s else money and
property. Very few of the grandscale governmental
atrocities were done by advocates of laissez-faire
capitalism but au contraire by advocates of statism, collectivism, etc.
If you think the problem of Big Brother is George
Bush then you are not grasping principles. The
problem is in the nature of state power.
Government is not eloquence, it is not reason,
it is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful
master, as George Washington put it.
Margaret, neoliberalism in economic terms has long
meant an advocate of more free market capitalism
than New Dealism.  In Europe the term liberal has
long more corresponded to libertarian over here.
I have to agree with Steve about religion, it started as an earlier, primitive form of philosophy but since the time of Ancient Athens
has played a negative role. Reason and supernaturalism are diametrical opposites.
They are mutually exclusive ways of understanding
the world. And that Armaggedon nutstuff that Bush
and you endorse is precisely what is leading to
disaster in the Middle East. The Democrats are
just as bad as Bush, Pelosi was recently quoted
at an AIPAC dinner proclaiming that the Palestinian issue had nothing to do with the Middle East conflict ! What an imbecile ! Even W is not THAT stupid.

It seems as though Margarate is nice enough not to believe in armageddon.  As far as Palosi’s comment about the Palestinians goes it seems to be more foolish attempts to woo the Jewish community by Democrats.  As a Jew I really have to say that if anything Zionism has always historically dovetailed with anti-semitism.  Zionism was originally Christian and considered a fulfillment of biblical prophesy.  The Jews, following the Babylonian Talmud, rejected the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state by modern man as a form of blasphemy; a blatant usurpation of G-d’s will by man.  Zionism not only gave the anti-Jewish powers of Europe a chance to expell the Jews to Palestine in the late Victorian epoch, it also was a way to break up Jewish support for revolutionary and workers movements in Russia and throughout Europe while eliminating unwanted economic competition from a freshly emancipated people by sending them to colonize the lands of others.  Forced colonization was a time-honored practice of getting rid of inconvienent populations on the continent and the Jews were no exception!  Finally, even by 1945 most of the 400,000 to 450,000 Jewish displaced persons in British and US allied zones wanted to come to the western engliish-speaking countries but were denied except for a small token.  Most were forced to go to Palestine against their will and, according to recent Israeli research, segregated and de-humanizingly herded into training camps under US military control in Europe and force to undergo training by the Irgun then shipped out to fight in Palestine.  No Zionists ever objected.  It is time for Zionism to recognized for the divisive form of colonialism it is having caused both Jews and Arabs needless suffering in the service of western imperialism!  The US fears most the democratization of the Middle East for than US hegemony and its military agenda would never survive.  The ongoing wasteful conflict has served only to justify a bigger US military presence to guard the oil fields and to use Israel as it alway has to crush Arab nationalism and democratic struggle under foot.  An independent state can not resolve the Jewish question. Only peace, democracy, and global equality and tolerance can accomplish that task!

Steve, I largely agree with your comments and have
always supported one democratic, secular state.
Alfred Lilienthal’s What Price Israel ? and The
Zionist Connection document your comments here.
Margaret does believe in Armageddon, she’s been
quite explicit on that point in other forums
and she is a Christian (Baptist) Zionist who is
quite anti-Arab and pretty innocent of the actual
history of the Middle East. Her progressivism,
like so many other Democrats, stops short of the
Middle East.
I think in most of the modern world there is no
longer a Jewish Question and the general issue
of anti-semitism or anti-Jewish views (since Arabs
are semites) has been fading and if it wasn’t for
the state of Israel may have largely vanished by
now. I also think the creation of Israel has been
a major factor in spurring the unfortunate resurgence of Islam in its more fundamentalist
forms in the Middle East. Then of course the
neocons prey on the ignorance of these Christian
zealot nuts, largely in the south, who actually
believe this biblical lunacy. That is why you have
people like DeLay, who would otherwise be anti-semitic, posturing as great friends of the Likud
view of Israel.

Jack--

George....  Jack W Snow signature to lower left… the reference was to the dollar bill.  Get it?
Jack, the quote was from Skully’s article.  His general argument within the article you recommender was more or less summed up by that very quote.
Anyway, glad to see you back on these boards spewing your vitriol.  Did it bring joy to heart to learn that over the weekend the Klan was back at it in Durham and Chi-Town?
They’re making their case for state’s rights and the unfairness of Lincoln’s instigation of the civil war.

I agree with your observation that people like DeLay and other ultra-rightwing fundamentalists are essentially anti-Jewish simply by virtue of their narrow and fanatical religious beliefs.  Their support for Israel is sick given it is their cynical way of bringing about the apocalyptic destruction of the very Jews that are preserving Zion for Christian inheretance in the endtimes-Jews who are only there because of genocidal Christian persecution in the first place!  People like this see Jews not as a normal, secular, and modern community which evolved through the ages like everyone else-that is in simple human terms- but rather as one-dimensional stick figures from their twisted biblical interpretation. These fanatics think modern Jews possess some mystical, transcendental linkage to events in a distant place from over 2000 years ago.  Nothing else, not even an event like the Holocaust, is relevant to them!  Some take their myopic views so far as to openly refer to Israel as a Christian country!  This is only one reason why I feel that wholly religious patterns of thought are inherently arrogant and necessarily stigmatize and de-humanize the “other” as a modus operandi.  The needless, contemporary suffering is clear for all to see!

steve--

in what way are different from Jack?
i mean, different in fact or otherwise?  do you guys hang out at the same bars and stuff, and do things like shoot ‘blow-jobs’, ‘kamikazes’, or whatever-it-is-that-the-happening-guys-do are doing these days?

Ryan Conover,there’s a difference between voting according to your convictions(be they shaped by your religious beliefs or not),and having your government officially sanctioning one religion over another.What if it’s not your religion?How would feel about that?The constitution specifically seperates church and state for a reason.And a good reason at that.

In response to Sil E. Walker, no Jack and I don’t hang out or even know each other although I think I recognize the name Jack Barnes as one of a published author of articles in progressive, topical journals on political issues (Jack, please confirm or deny if this is correct!) All I am really saying is that everyone has the right to his or her own faith but, as with all rights, religious rights stop where someone elses begin!  That means no one has the right to exclusively invest the state with their own religious beliefs, force their beliefs on others, or stigmatize others in fact or in doctrine for not accepting a particular faith or any faith. They also have no right to harm, or endorse harming, anyone in the name of religion.  9/11 shows us the horror of religious hate!

Steve, you are correct. And also agree with your
views on church-state separation.
Laslo, your comments make no sense to me so let’s
move on. I understand the Scully quote, which I
thought originally came from Adam Smith.
The other ref makes no sense.

Mary says “Say what you want about Christianity - after all, many or most non-Christians in the US and Europe feel free to openly be disrespectful of it.

BUT. I have yet to see rioting and DEATH because some fool may or may not have flushed a bible. Talk about backward morons! Killing people over a supposed insult to a BOOK. Makes our (Christian) kooks look positively sane. . .”

Mary Mary Mary how ignorant can you be?  Have you not studied history?  It is full of you ignorant Christians killing each other over a few sentences in your mythology.  This is why people with a clue question Christianity because you people have no logic or common sense.  You believe in mythology to be history, you believe virgin births, death and resurrection, Noah’s Ark and people floating to heaven.  You have been killing each other for millennia over your book. Get it yet?  I didn’t think so.

You are right, Patrick. Christianity is a bloody
Jewish cult and has caused no end of harm.

Yet the Jews cannot be responsible for such harm, much of which was directed at the Jews themselves, having rejected the call to embrace Christian beliefs.  I also find interested how all these right-wing fundamentalist churches send money to and lobby on behalf of Israel, undercut and ignore (and even red-bait) the large and growing Jewish peace movement, and encourage all manner of reactionary settlement and violence toward Arabs on religious grounds.  They do this knowing cynically that Jews both inside and outside Israel will ultimately have to answer personally for the harm done in the Middle East whether or not it was essentially all Christian financed, encouraged, and supported. This is the most disgusting part of all. Such is modern organized religion!

All valid points. But too many US Jews do mindlessly support Israel because they are
focussed on always thinking of Jews as victims.
So it’s a fight on more than one front.

Yes, you’re right. To them Israel is a survival issue. Peace is more of a guarantee of survival that war.  People don’t get it.

We agree. Thanks for making your good points.

While I would agree with the “red-baiting” statement, one thing really amuses me when you all discuss Christianity.  The teachings of Jesus Christ are “christianity”, and Jesus was a non-violent rebel against the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Romans in his day.  He was anti-empire, anti-violence, pro-tolerance (he didn’t tolerate hypocrits, however).  The Pharisees and Sadducees subverted the Hebrew texts to create a situation very much like the large, organized megachurches of today.  Exclusive, intolerant, unforgiving and blind.

He would surely have a field day here today, hyprocrits a-plenty!

Finally, one thing you all never consider is the possibility that you’re wrong and Jesus Christ is the Messiah, and the Bible is correct.  I know you can’t let your ego go there, because that would mean you are not the absolute architect of your own destiny.  My best friend is an aetheist, and we discuss religion a lot.  Have been for 30 years.  She’s still my best friend, but she can’t believe because of that one point.

Time will tell, but I think you will definitely get the shorter end of the stick if Jesus wasn’t a liar.  I guess I could regret not have been more licentious and greedy in this life, oh well.

Mrgaret, let me chew over your thoughts and maybe
respond later. I’m tired and I don’t want to make a flip response.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Even if Jesus is the Messiah, how can we trust the New Testiment and the way in which the Gospels were written by Greek writers 200 years later.  Many religious scholars, historians, and even Christian seminarians themselves have seriously allowed for the possiblity of self-serving, erronious claims given that for the 200 or so years before the writing of the New Testiment the political situation in the Middle East was one of great internal war and tension between Greeks, Jews, Romans, and possibly others who were the object of conversion attempts by both new Christians and Jews.  The Jews were still struggling to remain in their ancient home against Romans and others who hated them.  In all likelihood, the Greeks who wrote the New Testiment understood the political power of the Romans and what they could do to end the suffering and persecution of the Christians in Roman times and thus promote Christianity if these Greek Scholars flattered Rome by absolving them of the brutal murder of Jesus and blamed the Jews who everyone hated anyhow and who both Greeks and Romans wanted expelled from Palestine!  In all likelihood the few Jews who witnessed the Crucifiction were horrified but to afraid to intervene against the Roman soldiers.  The claim that Pilate gave the crowd a choice about it means little since we really don’t know who was in the crowd and how representitive they were of Jewish opinion anyhow.  We know over 30% of all Jews of that day were already in the diaspora in places like, Elaphantine south along the Egyptian Nile, Babylon, Yemen, and even Ethiopia.  The remainder probably lived all over Israel and were scarcely aware of the events on Calvary Hill. Even the significant number who lived in Jerusalem were mostly oblivious to events, as were many future Christians, and quite aloof from what was occuring.  The majority of the Gospels of Jesus that are in the Vatican probably DON’T mention any Jewish culpability.  Even of the four Gospels that are cannon only one or two really focus on the Jews at all! The focus on Jewish culpability for what was really G-d’s will according to Christian belief, is seemingly misplaced at best.  At worst it is a lie based on ancient opportunistic politics that has been used for over two millenia for cruel and murderous hatred.  Why is Christianity the ONLY religion to bear hatred against another group (one which forms the basis of the Christian faith no less) as if it were required by doctrine and as a matter of faith.  Anti-semitism is so much an inextricable part of Christian identity and belief that no amount of teaching and secularization of society can ever reverse it!  The extreme Christian ferver in US society today is quite dangerous for the Jewish community many of whose members naively believe expressed support for Israel on the part of Christians means acceptance of Jews per se! The Catholic Church in Vatican II in 1965 absolved the Jews as a group for the Crucification and made hatred of Jews on this basis docrinally wrongful!  Yet it hardly stops millions of devout Catholics, among them Mel Gibson who claims to accept any pronouncement that is “straight from The Chair” as Cannon, from hating and blaming Jews for all manner of wrongs including the Crucifiction of Jesus.  It seems the Jews are historically the bad guys for many Christians who cannot be diabused of their quite unChristian hatred!

Steve,

I can see you put a lot of thought into your post, so I want to be honest in my response.

First, you are incorrect that Greeks wrote the New Testament 300 years after Christ.  It was completely written by 92-95 A.D. in Aramaic.  The Greeks, being the first civilization outside of Rome to start turning in a big way to Jesus, then translated