Guardian Unlimited | Arts features | 'We have to protect people': "'We have to protect people' | Thursday December 9, 2004
The Guardian "
President Bush wants 'pro-homosexual' drama banned. Gary Taylor meets the politician in charge of making it happen
...
Bush is interested in Allen's opinions because Allen is an elected Republican representative in the Alabama state legislature. He is Bush's base. Last week, Bush's base introduced a bill that would ban the use of state funds to purchase any books or other materials that "promote homosexuality". Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle". That's why Tennessee Williams and Alice Walker have got to go.
...
Since Allen couldn't give me a single example of the homosexual equivalent of 9/11, I gave him some. This autumn the University of Alabama theatre department put on an energetic revival of A Chorus Line, which includes, besides "tits and ass", a prominent gay solo number. Would Allen's bill prevent university students from performing A Chorus Line? It isn't that he's against the theatre, Allen explains. "But why can't you do something else?" (They have done other things, of course. But I didn't think it would be a good idea to mention their sold-out productions of Angels in America and The Rocky Horror Show.)
Cutting off funds to theatre departments that put on A Chorus Line or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof may look like censorship, and smell like censorship, but "it's not censorship", Allen hastens to explain. "For instance, there's a reason for stop lights. You're driving a vehicle, you see that stop light, and I hope you stop." Who can argue with something as reasonable as stop lights? Of course, if you're gay, this particular traffic light never changes to green. ...
Friday, December 31, 2004
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Chicago Tribune | Campus club seeks right to exclude gays
Chicago Tribune | Campus club seeks right to exclude gays: "Campus club seeks right to exclude gays | ASU, Christian group battle in court | By Vincent J. Schodolski | Tribune national correspondent | Published December 28, 2004
TEMPE, Ariz. -- A legal confrontation is playing out here as a student organization seeks official recognition and money from a state-run university even though the students plan to exclude non-Christians and gays.
...
In the lawsuit, the society argues that the members at Arizona State have a constitutionally protected right to organize and receive university recognition under the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Members of the Christian Legal Society must sign a statement of faith, a document that essentially is the Apostles' Creed. In the declaration, members attest to their faith in God and also say the Bible is the "inspired word of God."
...
M. Casey Mattox, litigation counsel for the Christian Legal Society in Washington, said the group asked Arizona State to exempt the chapter from having to comply with university policies that required non-discrimination against people on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation.
Nancy Tribbensee, a staff attorney for the university, said Arizona State will not comply with the society's request. "We are aggressively defending" the non-discrimination policy, she said.
...
In a recent case at Ohio State University, officials ultimately allowed a chapter to form and be recognized and allowed the group to refuse membership to non-Christians and homosexuals.
"It ended up in our changing our policy," said Amy Murray, assistant director of media relations at Ohio State.
...
"They are forcing taxpayers to underwrite discrimination," said David Tseng, a Washington attorney who has specialized in non-discrimination law. "The endorsement of discrimination is appalling," he said.
Tseng, formerly executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said the use of public money was the crucial factor and that tax money should be spent to advance the public good.
The members of the Christian Legal Society "have the right to meet and to organize, but the example we are setting for students is that bigotry is acceptable," he said. "They are using the mantle of religion to mask a very blunt objective, that is to deny equality."
TEMPE, Ariz. -- A legal confrontation is playing out here as a student organization seeks official recognition and money from a state-run university even though the students plan to exclude non-Christians and gays.
...
In the lawsuit, the society argues that the members at Arizona State have a constitutionally protected right to organize and receive university recognition under the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Members of the Christian Legal Society must sign a statement of faith, a document that essentially is the Apostles' Creed. In the declaration, members attest to their faith in God and also say the Bible is the "inspired word of God."
...
M. Casey Mattox, litigation counsel for the Christian Legal Society in Washington, said the group asked Arizona State to exempt the chapter from having to comply with university policies that required non-discrimination against people on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation.
Nancy Tribbensee, a staff attorney for the university, said Arizona State will not comply with the society's request. "We are aggressively defending" the non-discrimination policy, she said.
...
In a recent case at Ohio State University, officials ultimately allowed a chapter to form and be recognized and allowed the group to refuse membership to non-Christians and homosexuals.
"It ended up in our changing our policy," said Amy Murray, assistant director of media relations at Ohio State.
...
"They are forcing taxpayers to underwrite discrimination," said David Tseng, a Washington attorney who has specialized in non-discrimination law. "The endorsement of discrimination is appalling," he said.
Tseng, formerly executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said the use of public money was the crucial factor and that tax money should be spent to advance the public good.
The members of the Christian Legal Society "have the right to meet and to organize, but the example we are setting for students is that bigotry is acceptable," he said. "They are using the mantle of religion to mask a very blunt objective, that is to deny equality."
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Yahoo! News - Conservative Students Target Liberal Profs
Yahoo! News - Conservative Students Target Liberal Profs: "Sat Dec 25,12:22 PM ET U.S. National - AP | By JUSTIN POPE, AP Education Writer
Traditionally, clashes over academic freedom have pitted politicians or administrators against instructors who wanted to express their opinions and teach as they saw fit. But increasingly, it is students who are invoking academic freedom, claiming biased professors are violating their right to a classroom free from indoctrination.
For example, at the University of North Carolina, three incoming freshmen sued over a reading assignment they said offended their Christian beliefs.
In Colorado and Indiana, a national conservative group publicized student allegations of left-wing bias by professors. Faculty received hate mail and were pictured in mock "wanted" posters; at least one college said teacher received a death threat.
And at Columbia University in New York, a documentary film alleging that teachers intimidate students who support Israel drew the attention of administrators.
...
To many professors, there's a new and deeply troubling aspect to this latest chapter in the debate over academic freedom: students trying to dictate what they don't want to be taught.
"Even the most contentious or disaffected of students in the '60s or early '70s never really pressed this kind of issue," said Robert O'Neil, former president of the University of Virginia and now director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.
Those behind the trend call it an antidote to the overwhelming liberal dominance of university faculties. But many educators, while agreeing students should never feel bullied, worry that they just want to avoid exposure to ideas that challenge their core beliefs — an essential part of education.
Some also fear teachers will shy away from sensitive topics, or fend off criticism by "balancing" their syllabuses with opposing viewpoints, even if they represent inferior scholarship.
"Faculty retrench. They are less willing to discuss contemporary problems and I think everyone loses out," said Joe Losco, a professor of political science at Ball State University in Indiana who has supported two colleagues targeted for alleged bias. "It puts a chill in the air."
Conservatives say a chill is in order.
Traditionally, clashes over academic freedom have pitted politicians or administrators against instructors who wanted to express their opinions and teach as they saw fit. But increasingly, it is students who are invoking academic freedom, claiming biased professors are violating their right to a classroom free from indoctrination.
For example, at the University of North Carolina, three incoming freshmen sued over a reading assignment they said offended their Christian beliefs.
In Colorado and Indiana, a national conservative group publicized student allegations of left-wing bias by professors. Faculty received hate mail and were pictured in mock "wanted" posters; at least one college said teacher received a death threat.
And at Columbia University in New York, a documentary film alleging that teachers intimidate students who support Israel drew the attention of administrators.
...
To many professors, there's a new and deeply troubling aspect to this latest chapter in the debate over academic freedom: students trying to dictate what they don't want to be taught.
"Even the most contentious or disaffected of students in the '60s or early '70s never really pressed this kind of issue," said Robert O'Neil, former president of the University of Virginia and now director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.
Those behind the trend call it an antidote to the overwhelming liberal dominance of university faculties. But many educators, while agreeing students should never feel bullied, worry that they just want to avoid exposure to ideas that challenge their core beliefs — an essential part of education.
Some also fear teachers will shy away from sensitive topics, or fend off criticism by "balancing" their syllabuses with opposing viewpoints, even if they represent inferior scholarship.
"Faculty retrench. They are less willing to discuss contemporary problems and I think everyone loses out," said Joe Losco, a professor of political science at Ball State University in Indiana who has supported two colleagues targeted for alleged bias. "It puts a chill in the air."
Conservatives say a chill is in order.
Saturday, December 25, 2004
There has not been a mass murderer that has not claimed that God was on their side, including Hitler
religion and politics: how to corrupt them both: "Religion & Politics and How to Corrupt Them Both | By JACK DALTON | 12-24-04
There are certain things in life that just do not go together—peanut butter and tuna fish come to mind. There’s nothing wrong with either one but I don’t recommend mixing them together or you’ll end up with a really bad taste in your mouth. The same can be said of mixing religion and politics. There is no possible way to merge the two without them mutually polluting each other.
...
My failure to see anything Christian or righteous regarding Bush, Falwell and the “religious right” is because I feel those characteristics require a bit more than just lip service. Recently the “good” Rev. Falwell proclaimed that “we should just keep bombing them all in the name of the Lord.” Riiiiight! That will solve everything won’t it? This is the kind of thinking that has invaded way too many of America’s pulpits.
The unfortunate thing about organized religion—all religions—is the fundamentalists within it who won’t be satisfied until all people accept their way of life and worship; and they are willing to go to violent extremes to achieve that goal. ...
...
Those that are a part of this radical movement, that have the audacity to call themselves “Christians,” state over and over again that they are in no way like the Taliban or al-Queda because they are not as vicious or as brutal. There are upwards of 100,000 dead Iraqi’s that would beg to differ; there are mangled children in Fallujah who would also beg to differ; the over 500,000 Iraqi children that died as a result of ten years of U.S. sanctions would also beg to differ.
Then there is the destructive image given to Christianity, as a whole, by this group of “Cherry Pickin’ Christians.” These are the people that have given Christianity a serious black-eye by such outspoken and all too visible “religious leaders” who think God supports invasions and torture, just as long as it’s done in “His name.”
...
This revolutionary movement is using the Constitution to take away guaranteed rights for certain groups of American citizens for the first time in the nation’s history. It has moved into our public schools and is working overtime to discredit science in order to implement the “reality of Creationism.”
... there has not been a mass murderer that has not claimed that God was on their side, including Hitler: “The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." Adolph Hitler, My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933.
Does that sound familiar to anyone? God is always being “used” by those that desire to control the citizens of their nations and to “move” them in the desired direction—it has never worked and is doomed to failure here in America—but what will be the cost?; ...
...
Galations 5:22, 23: …but the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
There are certain things in life that just do not go together—peanut butter and tuna fish come to mind. There’s nothing wrong with either one but I don’t recommend mixing them together or you’ll end up with a really bad taste in your mouth. The same can be said of mixing religion and politics. There is no possible way to merge the two without them mutually polluting each other.
...
My failure to see anything Christian or righteous regarding Bush, Falwell and the “religious right” is because I feel those characteristics require a bit more than just lip service. Recently the “good” Rev. Falwell proclaimed that “we should just keep bombing them all in the name of the Lord.” Riiiiight! That will solve everything won’t it? This is the kind of thinking that has invaded way too many of America’s pulpits.
The unfortunate thing about organized religion—all religions—is the fundamentalists within it who won’t be satisfied until all people accept their way of life and worship; and they are willing to go to violent extremes to achieve that goal. ...
...
Those that are a part of this radical movement, that have the audacity to call themselves “Christians,” state over and over again that they are in no way like the Taliban or al-Queda because they are not as vicious or as brutal. There are upwards of 100,000 dead Iraqi’s that would beg to differ; there are mangled children in Fallujah who would also beg to differ; the over 500,000 Iraqi children that died as a result of ten years of U.S. sanctions would also beg to differ.
Then there is the destructive image given to Christianity, as a whole, by this group of “Cherry Pickin’ Christians.” These are the people that have given Christianity a serious black-eye by such outspoken and all too visible “religious leaders” who think God supports invasions and torture, just as long as it’s done in “His name.”
...
This revolutionary movement is using the Constitution to take away guaranteed rights for certain groups of American citizens for the first time in the nation’s history. It has moved into our public schools and is working overtime to discredit science in order to implement the “reality of Creationism.”
... there has not been a mass murderer that has not claimed that God was on their side, including Hitler: “The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." Adolph Hitler, My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933.
Does that sound familiar to anyone? God is always being “used” by those that desire to control the citizens of their nations and to “move” them in the desired direction—it has never worked and is doomed to failure here in America—but what will be the cost?; ...
...
Galations 5:22, 23: …but the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
The Myth of National Victimhood - All Wrapped and Delivered for Christmas
The Myth of National Victimhood - All Wrapped and Delivered for Christmas: "The Myth of National Victimhood - All Wrapped and Delivered for Christmas | by Thom Hartmann | www.OpEdNews.com
It's Christmas week - Adolf Hitler's favorite season after he declared an official merger of church and state - and, ironically, conservatives are using the occasion to mount a new and bizarre attack.
They said liberals are out to destroy Christmas. Cobbling together a few anecdotes (unsupportable attacks are always anecdote-based), they managed to imply a vast anti-Christian conspiracy bubbling just under the belly of America, and pushed that frightening implication into the minds of millions of Americans just in time for the holiday season.
But for conservatives to keep the loyalty of the working-class victims of their policies (which are shipping American jobs overseas, while fighting unions and minimum-wage increases here), they must convince people that there is a "them" out there - liberals in this case - who are out to destroy America's moral fiber and are thus responsible for working-class misery.
This is an old trick, and one the cons know is very difficult to counter. ...
...
And when a consortium of news organizations recounted the Florida 2000 vote and it was found that Al Gore actually won the entire state - and thus the presidency - no matter what standard was used to count the ballots, the corporate news organizations of America buried the story (although the New York Times and Washington Post at least did report it on 09/12/01).
Our Attorney General-designate calls the Geneva Conventions "quaint"; our Secretary of Defense stands accused of ordering torture; our President and Vice President knowingly lie to us and the world in order to lead an election-year preemptive war; and Congress passes national security bills without reading them - eerily like the German Parliament passed the Enabling Acts after the Reichstag was burned.
So how to counter it?
It's Christmas week - Adolf Hitler's favorite season after he declared an official merger of church and state - and, ironically, conservatives are using the occasion to mount a new and bizarre attack.
They said liberals are out to destroy Christmas. Cobbling together a few anecdotes (unsupportable attacks are always anecdote-based), they managed to imply a vast anti-Christian conspiracy bubbling just under the belly of America, and pushed that frightening implication into the minds of millions of Americans just in time for the holiday season.
But for conservatives to keep the loyalty of the working-class victims of their policies (which are shipping American jobs overseas, while fighting unions and minimum-wage increases here), they must convince people that there is a "them" out there - liberals in this case - who are out to destroy America's moral fiber and are thus responsible for working-class misery.
This is an old trick, and one the cons know is very difficult to counter. ...
...
And when a consortium of news organizations recounted the Florida 2000 vote and it was found that Al Gore actually won the entire state - and thus the presidency - no matter what standard was used to count the ballots, the corporate news organizations of America buried the story (although the New York Times and Washington Post at least did report it on 09/12/01).
Our Attorney General-designate calls the Geneva Conventions "quaint"; our Secretary of Defense stands accused of ordering torture; our President and Vice President knowingly lie to us and the world in order to lead an election-year preemptive war; and Congress passes national security bills without reading them - eerily like the German Parliament passed the Enabling Acts after the Reichstag was burned.
So how to counter it?
Friday, December 24, 2004
Groups on Right Say Christmas Is Under Attack: Fact or exaggerated threat?
Groups on Right Say Christmas Is Under Attack (washingtonpost.com): "Others Call Outcry A Ploy for Funds | By Dana Milbank | Washington Post Staff Writer | Friday, December 24, 2004; Page A04
Many of the conservative Christian groups that led the fight this year to ban same-sex marriage are sounding an alarm about efforts to block Christmas celebrations.
Representatives of the groups -- including the Alliance Defense Fund, the Thomas More Law Center and Liberty Counsel -- say the two issues, and other pending fights over public display of the Ten Commandments and teaching of evolution, are linked by a belief among religious conservatives that traditional values are under siege in the United States.
Those on the other side of these battles say the Christian groups are wildly exaggerating the threats from a phantom enemy for the purpose of mobilizing evangelicals to contribute funds (some groups are explicitly using the Christmas issue to raise money) or to become politically active. On the Christmas fight, the American Civil Liberties Union, the group most often cited as the enemy of traditionalists, says it has not filed a single case blocking Christmas displays this year and cites half a dozen instances over the past year in which it has fought on the side of more religious expression.
"This is the winter equivalent of those summer stories about shark attacks being on the increase," says Barry Lynn, who heads the liberal group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The conservative groups, he said, "think they can make Christians feel like a besieged majority. It creates a Christian solidarity against all those who would oppress them: secularists in this season, gay and lesbians next month, abortion the next month."
Many of the conservative Christian groups that led the fight this year to ban same-sex marriage are sounding an alarm about efforts to block Christmas celebrations.
Representatives of the groups -- including the Alliance Defense Fund, the Thomas More Law Center and Liberty Counsel -- say the two issues, and other pending fights over public display of the Ten Commandments and teaching of evolution, are linked by a belief among religious conservatives that traditional values are under siege in the United States.
Those on the other side of these battles say the Christian groups are wildly exaggerating the threats from a phantom enemy for the purpose of mobilizing evangelicals to contribute funds (some groups are explicitly using the Christmas issue to raise money) or to become politically active. On the Christmas fight, the American Civil Liberties Union, the group most often cited as the enemy of traditionalists, says it has not filed a single case blocking Christmas displays this year and cites half a dozen instances over the past year in which it has fought on the side of more religious expression.
"This is the winter equivalent of those summer stories about shark attacks being on the increase," says Barry Lynn, who heads the liberal group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The conservative groups, he said, "think they can make Christians feel like a besieged majority. It creates a Christian solidarity against all those who would oppress them: secularists in this season, gay and lesbians next month, abortion the next month."
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Pat Robertson .. sellling books at high prices ... and pushing republican books and causes (... hopefully not a tax-exempt charity!?)
Religion in America: God . . . or Just ''Business as Usual''? - Independent Media TV: "Religion in America: God . . . or Just ''Business as Usual''? | December 16, 2004 | By: David Palmer
...
This initial review on the subject focuses on the practices of televangelist and “political wanna-be” Pat Robertson.
...
Researching Robertson, I discovered that he graduated from Yale law school in 1955 (I should’ve known). Apparently, after receiving his law degree, Pat decided he’d join the second most ethical profession in America, which is of course “religion.” One look at his current Web site renders it indisputable that Rev. Pat Robertson and the Christian Broadcast Network (CBN) derive their “means of livelihood” from the selling and/or promotion of religion.
...
The CBN Online Book Store
On his CBN Web site, Robertson offers (“hawks,” actually) hundreds of books, DVD’s, videos and audiotapes that ostensibly would, or should, have some relationship to preaching the word of God. Robertson’s bookstore is called “Parable” and touts, “Your Christian bookstore for Bibles, books, music & more!”
Because he professes to be a man of God, and because the Bible is his main weapon of choice, if you will, then wouldn’t you think he’d sell copies to his flock and/or viewers at or near cost? That’d be the Christian thing to do, wouldn’t it? Unfortunately, when I compared Robertson’s advertised sale prices against those offered by Amazon.com, I discovered just the opposite. Further, Robertson has the “chutzpah” to list the alleged “savings” his buyers realize as he is concurrently “fleecing” them.
The Torah: The Five Books of Moses – Paperback Amazon $8.99—CBN $21.60—Christians Save $12.61!
New Spirit-Filled Life Bible: Kingdom Equipping Through the Power of the Word New King James – Leather Amazon $37.78—CBN $80.99–Christians Save $43.21!
Extreme Teen Bible – New King James – Leather Amazon $24.95—CBN $40.49—Christians Save $15.54!
Robertson Hawking of Right-Wing Propaganda
- High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case against Clinton—Rev. Ann Coulter
- Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism—Rev. Ann Coulter
- Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right—Rev. Ann Coulter
- Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism—Rev. Sean Hannity
- Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Liberalism and Despotism—Rev. Sean Hannity
- Doing Things Right—Rev. Gary Lee Bauer
- The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Churches, Schools, and Military—Rev. Michael Savage
- Agenda for America: Republican Direction for the Future—Haley Barbour
- Lessons Learned the Hard Way: A personal Report—Newt Gingrich
- Useful Idiots: Holding Today’s Liberals Accountable—Rev. Mona Charen
Vilifying Bill and Hillary
- Intelligence Failure: How Clinton’s Incompetence Undermined America’s Defense and Paved the Way for 9/11—Dave Bossie
- Year of the Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash—William Triplett and Edward Timberlake
- Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security—Bill Gertz
- Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton—Barbara Olson
- Absolute Power: The Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department—David Limbaugh
- Ron Brown’s Body: How One Man’s Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary’s Future—Jack Cashill
- Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House—John K. Roth
Attacking the So-called “Liberal Media”
- Journalistic Fraud: How the NY Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted—Bob Kohn
- Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, Universities and the U.N. are Subverting America—Laura Ingraham
- Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News—Bernard Goldberg
Glorifying Ronald Reagan and the Bushes
- All the Best, George Bush: My Life in Letters and Other Writings—Lisa Drew
- God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life—Paul Kengor
- Compassionate Conservatism: What It Is, What It Does, and How It Can Save America—George W. Bush & Marvin Olasky
- The Leadership Genius of George W. Bush: 10 Common Sense Lessons from the Commander-In-Chief—James W. Ware
Miscellaneous Subjects Unrelated to Religion
- Disney, the Mouse Betrayed: Greed, Corruption, and Children at Risk—Peter and Rochelle Schweitzer
- The Seven Myths of Gun Control: Reclaiming the Truth about Guns, Crime, and the Second Amendment—David Horowitz
- The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story [Publisher: Coca Cola]—David Brock
- Orphans in Babylon: Abortion in America—Roger Domingo
- Tom and Huck Don’t Live Here Anymore: Childhood and Murder in the Heart of America—Ron Powers
- The Rehnquist Choice: The Untold Story of the Nixon Appointment that Redefined the Supreme Court—John Dean
- Holocaust Politics—John K. Roth Amazon $4.49—CBN $26.96—Christians Save $22.47!
- The Wit and Wisdom of Cal Thomas —Wayne Stayskal
Sex and Homosexuality
- The Bible and Homosexual Practice—Robert A.J. Gagnon
- Seven Secrets to Sexual Purity [Pats’ version missing 3 secrets]—Dannah Gresh
- Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth—Jeffrey Satinoyer
- Homosexuality, Science, and the Plain Sense of Scripture—David L. Balch
- As We Sodomize America: The Homosexual Movement & Decline of Morality in America
...
This initial review on the subject focuses on the practices of televangelist and “political wanna-be” Pat Robertson.
...
Researching Robertson, I discovered that he graduated from Yale law school in 1955 (I should’ve known). Apparently, after receiving his law degree, Pat decided he’d join the second most ethical profession in America, which is of course “religion.” One look at his current Web site renders it indisputable that Rev. Pat Robertson and the Christian Broadcast Network (CBN) derive their “means of livelihood” from the selling and/or promotion of religion.
...
The CBN Online Book Store
On his CBN Web site, Robertson offers (“hawks,” actually) hundreds of books, DVD’s, videos and audiotapes that ostensibly would, or should, have some relationship to preaching the word of God. Robertson’s bookstore is called “Parable” and touts, “Your Christian bookstore for Bibles, books, music & more!”
Because he professes to be a man of God, and because the Bible is his main weapon of choice, if you will, then wouldn’t you think he’d sell copies to his flock and/or viewers at or near cost? That’d be the Christian thing to do, wouldn’t it? Unfortunately, when I compared Robertson’s advertised sale prices against those offered by Amazon.com, I discovered just the opposite. Further, Robertson has the “chutzpah” to list the alleged “savings” his buyers realize as he is concurrently “fleecing” them.
The Torah: The Five Books of Moses – Paperback Amazon $8.99—CBN $21.60—Christians Save $12.61!
New Spirit-Filled Life Bible: Kingdom Equipping Through the Power of the Word New King James – Leather Amazon $37.78—CBN $80.99–Christians Save $43.21!
Extreme Teen Bible – New King James – Leather Amazon $24.95—CBN $40.49—Christians Save $15.54!
Robertson Hawking of Right-Wing Propaganda
- High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case against Clinton—Rev. Ann Coulter
- Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism—Rev. Ann Coulter
- Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right—Rev. Ann Coulter
- Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism—Rev. Sean Hannity
- Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Liberalism and Despotism—Rev. Sean Hannity
- Doing Things Right—Rev. Gary Lee Bauer
- The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Churches, Schools, and Military—Rev. Michael Savage
- Agenda for America: Republican Direction for the Future—Haley Barbour
- Lessons Learned the Hard Way: A personal Report—Newt Gingrich
- Useful Idiots: Holding Today’s Liberals Accountable—Rev. Mona Charen
Vilifying Bill and Hillary
- Intelligence Failure: How Clinton’s Incompetence Undermined America’s Defense and Paved the Way for 9/11—Dave Bossie
- Year of the Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash—William Triplett and Edward Timberlake
- Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security—Bill Gertz
- Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton—Barbara Olson
- Absolute Power: The Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department—David Limbaugh
- Ron Brown’s Body: How One Man’s Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary’s Future—Jack Cashill
- Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House—John K. Roth
Attacking the So-called “Liberal Media”
- Journalistic Fraud: How the NY Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted—Bob Kohn
- Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, Universities and the U.N. are Subverting America—Laura Ingraham
- Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News—Bernard Goldberg
Glorifying Ronald Reagan and the Bushes
- All the Best, George Bush: My Life in Letters and Other Writings—Lisa Drew
- God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life—Paul Kengor
- Compassionate Conservatism: What It Is, What It Does, and How It Can Save America—George W. Bush & Marvin Olasky
- The Leadership Genius of George W. Bush: 10 Common Sense Lessons from the Commander-In-Chief—James W. Ware
Miscellaneous Subjects Unrelated to Religion
- Disney, the Mouse Betrayed: Greed, Corruption, and Children at Risk—Peter and Rochelle Schweitzer
- The Seven Myths of Gun Control: Reclaiming the Truth about Guns, Crime, and the Second Amendment—David Horowitz
- The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story [Publisher: Coca Cola]—David Brock
- Orphans in Babylon: Abortion in America—Roger Domingo
- Tom and Huck Don’t Live Here Anymore: Childhood and Murder in the Heart of America—Ron Powers
- The Rehnquist Choice: The Untold Story of the Nixon Appointment that Redefined the Supreme Court—John Dean
- Holocaust Politics—John K. Roth Amazon $4.49—CBN $26.96—Christians Save $22.47!
- The Wit and Wisdom of Cal Thomas —Wayne Stayskal
Sex and Homosexuality
- The Bible and Homosexual Practice—Robert A.J. Gagnon
- Seven Secrets to Sexual Purity [Pats’ version missing 3 secrets]—Dannah Gresh
- Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth—Jeffrey Satinoyer
- Homosexuality, Science, and the Plain Sense of Scripture—David L. Balch
- As We Sodomize America: The Homosexual Movement & Decline of Morality in America
Thursday, December 09, 2004
America is now a post-literate, post-logical society where truth and reason no longer matter: Asia and Europe poised to kick our collective butts
WHEN FUNDAMENTALISM AND POLITICAL HACKERY TRUMP SCIENCE: "By Randolph T. Holhut | American Reporter Correspondent | www.OpEdNews.com
Can a country where more people believe in the devil than in evolution maintain its leadership in the sciences?
That's a question that David Baltimore, Nobel laureate and president of the California Institute of Technology, asked in a recent
op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times. Baltimore believes that "Asia has the potential to blow us out of the water" because their scientists and engineers "are as good as ours, as imaginative as ours - they work longer hours and are more dedicated."
The numbers bear him out. India's colleges and universities are turning out more than 40,000 computer science graduates each year, and the enrollments in those programs are rising while U.S. colleges struggle to fill their science programs. And China produces more 325,000 engineers each year, or five times more than the United States.
By contrast, Baltimore wrote that our nation has a "lack of federal leadership in funding schooling that emphasizes math and science" with a "fragmented educational system that leaves much to local control" and an attitude of "general anti-intellectualism."
China is not a paradise politically, but it isn't having arguments over whether Darwin's theories are correct. It isn't rewriting science textbooks to give the Biblical version of creation equal weight with evolution. It isn't letting narrow political agendas or special interests trump scientific or medical facts.
Anti-intellectualism has always been a powerful force in America. Combine that with religious fundamentalism and you have a recipe for economic, scientific and political disaster. Because scientists in secular societies like Asia and Europe aren't fighting fundamentalist dogma and political hackery at every turn, they are now poised to kick our collective butts. And when this happens, most Americans will never know what hit them.
Why are we still arguing about Darwin? Why are more schools around the country forcing teachers to treat "intelligent design" (the new euphemism for creationism) as something as valid as evolution? Why do two-thirds of Americans (according to a CBS News poll taken last month) favor teaching creationism and evolution side-by-side in public schools? This is happening because America is now a post-literate, post-logical society where truth and reason no longer matter.
Can a country where more people believe in the devil than in evolution maintain its leadership in the sciences?
That's a question that David Baltimore, Nobel laureate and president of the California Institute of Technology, asked in a recent
op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times. Baltimore believes that "Asia has the potential to blow us out of the water" because their scientists and engineers "are as good as ours, as imaginative as ours - they work longer hours and are more dedicated."
The numbers bear him out. India's colleges and universities are turning out more than 40,000 computer science graduates each year, and the enrollments in those programs are rising while U.S. colleges struggle to fill their science programs. And China produces more 325,000 engineers each year, or five times more than the United States.
By contrast, Baltimore wrote that our nation has a "lack of federal leadership in funding schooling that emphasizes math and science" with a "fragmented educational system that leaves much to local control" and an attitude of "general anti-intellectualism."
China is not a paradise politically, but it isn't having arguments over whether Darwin's theories are correct. It isn't rewriting science textbooks to give the Biblical version of creation equal weight with evolution. It isn't letting narrow political agendas or special interests trump scientific or medical facts.
Anti-intellectualism has always been a powerful force in America. Combine that with religious fundamentalism and you have a recipe for economic, scientific and political disaster. Because scientists in secular societies like Asia and Europe aren't fighting fundamentalist dogma and political hackery at every turn, they are now poised to kick our collective butts. And when this happens, most Americans will never know what hit them.
Why are we still arguing about Darwin? Why are more schools around the country forcing teachers to treat "intelligent design" (the new euphemism for creationism) as something as valid as evolution? Why do two-thirds of Americans (according to a CBS News poll taken last month) favor teaching creationism and evolution side-by-side in public schools? This is happening because America is now a post-literate, post-logical society where truth and reason no longer matter.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
Lenni Brenner: Jefferson, Madison, Bush and Religion
Lenni Brenner: Jefferson, Madison, Bush and Religion: "December 4 / 6, 2004 | 'It is Safer to Trust the Consequences of a Right Principle, Than Reasonings in Support of a Bad One.'
...
...Antigay feeling, combined with clerical greed for US funding for church-run drug clinics, raised Bush's Black vote from 8% in 2000, to 11%. His Hispanic vote went from 31% to 43%.
...
Bush's support for Sharon, lust for government funding of yeshivas, & gut-basic Old Testament hatred of Sodomites, propelled 70% of Orthodox Jewry into Bush's camp. But Orthodoxy is less than 10% of American Jewry.
...
Article VI: 3 "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
...
Our bipartisan hacks get away with religious demagoguery because 66% of Americans don't know that "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal" is from Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. Fifty-three percent don't know that the 1st 10 amendments to the constitution are called the Bill of Rights, much less who authored it.
...
And indeed Jefferson's 1800 election as President was the high point of patriotic anticlericalism.
His most famous Presidential statement in his period is from an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
...
In any case, there is no doubt that Madison's anticlericalism increased with experience. He asked
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
"In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles:
...
No mincing words, no evasions, no hypocrisy: Bush & the "Judeo-Christian" right are trying to destroy Jefferson's domestic "wall of separation between Church and State," wholesale, while the Democrats will destroy it retail, but just as assuredly destroy it.
...
...Antigay feeling, combined with clerical greed for US funding for church-run drug clinics, raised Bush's Black vote from 8% in 2000, to 11%. His Hispanic vote went from 31% to 43%.
...
Bush's support for Sharon, lust for government funding of yeshivas, & gut-basic Old Testament hatred of Sodomites, propelled 70% of Orthodox Jewry into Bush's camp. But Orthodoxy is less than 10% of American Jewry.
...
Article VI: 3 "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
...
Our bipartisan hacks get away with religious demagoguery because 66% of Americans don't know that "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal" is from Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. Fifty-three percent don't know that the 1st 10 amendments to the constitution are called the Bill of Rights, much less who authored it.
...
And indeed Jefferson's 1800 election as President was the high point of patriotic anticlericalism.
His most famous Presidential statement in his period is from an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
...
In any case, there is no doubt that Madison's anticlericalism increased with experience. He asked
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
"In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles:
...
No mincing words, no evasions, no hypocrisy: Bush & the "Judeo-Christian" right are trying to destroy Jefferson's domestic "wall of separation between Church and State," wholesale, while the Democrats will destroy it retail, but just as assuredly destroy it.
Friday, December 03, 2004
The only things in common between the Commandments and most state or federal laws are prohibitions on killing and stealing ... It's about power
The Founders Confront Judge Moore: "November 20, 2003 by CommonDreams.org | by Thom Hartmann
Judge Moore, the 'Ten Commandments Judge' in Alabama, says the controversy he and Fox news have stirred up is about religion.
But it's not about religion. It's about power. A power that seeks, ultimately, to replace democracy.
... The judge's main arguments for keeping a graven image of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court rotunda were, he said, that America is a Judeo/Christian nation founded by Christians, and that the foundation of American law is the Bible and the Ten Commandments.
The most well-known of the Founders and Framers of this nation - those who wrote the Declaration of Independence, led the Revolutionary war, and wrote the Constitution - would strongly disagree on all counts.
Instead, the record tells us that many of the Founders and Framers believed that secular democracy is a more powerful unifying force for a decent and peaceful civil society than any religion ever was or could be. Although most were spiritual in their own ways, and many were also openly religious, as students of history the Founders and Framers knew the damage that organized religion could do when it gained access to the reigns of political power.
The Founders clearly divided power into four categories: military, religious, wealth/corporate, and political. The interaction of these types of power produced the three historic types of tyranny - warlord kings; theocratic popes; and wealthy feudal lords or monopolistic corporations like the East India Company.
..
Thus, political power would only be held by "We the People," and never again shared with military, corporate, or religious agencies.
...
For example, to keep political power from combining with military power in the new United States of America, the army was put under the civilian control of the elected President, and he, in turn, was legally incapable of declaring war (that power being given solely to Congress). As James Madison pointed out on April 20, 1795, presidents will always be tempted to gain excessive power by becoming warlords, which is why Congress must withhold from presidents the power to make war.
...
And, with the memory of the Salem witch trials and other religious atrocities still fresh in their minds, the Founders knew that those among the organized religions who sought to combine political power with their existing religious power would be unrelenting and could be deadly to democracy.
While our Founders were well schooled in the history of the Crusades they also knew from first-hand experience how oppressive religious men could be with even small amounts of political power. Ben Franklin fled Boston when he was a teenager in part to escape the oppressive environment created by politically powerful preachers, and for the rest of his life was openly hostile to the idea of secular political power being wielded by those who also hold religious power. Although he was enthralled by the "mystery" of the spiritual experience, Franklin had little use for the organized religions of the day. In his autobiographical "Toward The Mystery," he wrote, "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."
...
In fact, President George Washington supervised the language of a treaty with African Muslims that explicitly stated that the United States was a secular nation.
The Treaty With Tripoli, worked out under Washington's guidance and then signed into law by John Adams in 1797, reads: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
...
For example, on February 21, 1811, President James Madison vetoed a bill passed by Congress that authorized government payments to a church in Washington, DC to help the poor. Faith-based initiatives were a clear violation, in Madison's mind, of the doctrine of separation of church and state, and could lead to a dangerous transfer of political power to religious leaders.
...
Yet in the days of the Founders, like today, there were many religious leaders who aspired to political power. They claimed that their right to influence government was legitimate because, they said, government itself was founded on their territory - the Ten Commandments. Because our system of laws was founded on the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments, the religious leaders said, they and their Commandments should play a large and powerful role in government and be able to both take from the public purse and influence the courts and laws.
This assertion - that British common law and American law derived from the Ten Commandments - was particularly infuriating to the Founders.
First, there's the simple fact that there isn't that much overlap. Our laws don't specify a single god who must be worshipped, ban graven images, require us to take a day off work every week, mandate that we "honor" our parents, make it illegal for men to "covet" other men's wives or sleep with unmarried women, or make it illegal to lie (in fact, corporations have recently asserted the explicit "right to lie" under the First Amendment). The only things in common between the Commandments and most state or federal laws are prohibitions on killing and stealing, which most people figure have always been pretty obvious.
...
In a January 24, 1814 letter to John Adams, Jefferson went through a detailed lawyer's brief to show that the entire idea that the laws of both England and the United States came from Judaism, Christianity, or the Ten Commandments rests on a single man's mistranslation in 1658, often repeated, and totally false.
"It is not only the sacred volumes they [the churches] have thus interpolated, gutted, and falsified, but the works of others relating to them, and even the laws of the land," he wrote. "Our judges, too, have lent a ready hand to further these frauds, and have been willing to lay the yoke of their own opinions on the necks of others; to extend the coercions of municipal law to the dogmas of their religion, by declaring that these make a part of the law of the land."
...
It was a long-running topic of agreement between Jefferson and John Adams, who, on September 24, 1821, wrote to Jefferson noting their mutual hope that America would embrace a purely secular, rational view of what human society could become:
"Hope springs eternal. Eight millions of Jews hope for a Messiah more powerful and glorious than Moses, David, or Solomon; who is to make them as powerful as he pleases. Some hundreds of millions of Mussulmans expect another prophet more powerful than Mahomet, who is to spread Islamism over the whole earth. Hundreds of millions of Christians expect and hope for a millennium in which Jesus is to reign for a thousand years over the whole world before it is burnt up. The Hindoos expect another and final incarnation of Vishnu, who is to do great and wonderful things, I know not what." But, Adams noted, the hope for a positive future for America was - in his mind and Jefferson's - grounded in rationality and government, not in religion. "You and I hope for splendid improvements in human society, and vast amelioration in the condition of mankind," he wrote. "Our faith may be supposed by more rational arguments than any of the former."
And yet the true faith of our Founders - the faith in a secular political system uncontaminated by warlord presidents, wealthy corporations, or grasping religious leaders - is under attack once again.
...
Jefferson concluded his letter by denouncing the efforts of churchmen to seize the fledgling United States of America, and paraphrased a 1732 play by Henry Fielding, "The Lottery," in which a character says "Sing Tantararara, Fools all, Fools all," lamenting that in the lottery of life, the fools win out all too often.
"What a conspiracy this," Jefferson closed his 1824 letter to Cartwright, "between Church and State! Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all, Sing Tantarara, rogues all!"
Judge Moore, the 'Ten Commandments Judge' in Alabama, says the controversy he and Fox news have stirred up is about religion.
But it's not about religion. It's about power. A power that seeks, ultimately, to replace democracy.
... The judge's main arguments for keeping a graven image of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court rotunda were, he said, that America is a Judeo/Christian nation founded by Christians, and that the foundation of American law is the Bible and the Ten Commandments.
The most well-known of the Founders and Framers of this nation - those who wrote the Declaration of Independence, led the Revolutionary war, and wrote the Constitution - would strongly disagree on all counts.
Instead, the record tells us that many of the Founders and Framers believed that secular democracy is a more powerful unifying force for a decent and peaceful civil society than any religion ever was or could be. Although most were spiritual in their own ways, and many were also openly religious, as students of history the Founders and Framers knew the damage that organized religion could do when it gained access to the reigns of political power.
The Founders clearly divided power into four categories: military, religious, wealth/corporate, and political. The interaction of these types of power produced the three historic types of tyranny - warlord kings; theocratic popes; and wealthy feudal lords or monopolistic corporations like the East India Company.
..
Thus, political power would only be held by "We the People," and never again shared with military, corporate, or religious agencies.
...
For example, to keep political power from combining with military power in the new United States of America, the army was put under the civilian control of the elected President, and he, in turn, was legally incapable of declaring war (that power being given solely to Congress). As James Madison pointed out on April 20, 1795, presidents will always be tempted to gain excessive power by becoming warlords, which is why Congress must withhold from presidents the power to make war.
...
And, with the memory of the Salem witch trials and other religious atrocities still fresh in their minds, the Founders knew that those among the organized religions who sought to combine political power with their existing religious power would be unrelenting and could be deadly to democracy.
While our Founders were well schooled in the history of the Crusades they also knew from first-hand experience how oppressive religious men could be with even small amounts of political power. Ben Franklin fled Boston when he was a teenager in part to escape the oppressive environment created by politically powerful preachers, and for the rest of his life was openly hostile to the idea of secular political power being wielded by those who also hold religious power. Although he was enthralled by the "mystery" of the spiritual experience, Franklin had little use for the organized religions of the day. In his autobiographical "Toward The Mystery," he wrote, "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."
...
In fact, President George Washington supervised the language of a treaty with African Muslims that explicitly stated that the United States was a secular nation.
The Treaty With Tripoli, worked out under Washington's guidance and then signed into law by John Adams in 1797, reads: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
...
For example, on February 21, 1811, President James Madison vetoed a bill passed by Congress that authorized government payments to a church in Washington, DC to help the poor. Faith-based initiatives were a clear violation, in Madison's mind, of the doctrine of separation of church and state, and could lead to a dangerous transfer of political power to religious leaders.
...
Yet in the days of the Founders, like today, there were many religious leaders who aspired to political power. They claimed that their right to influence government was legitimate because, they said, government itself was founded on their territory - the Ten Commandments. Because our system of laws was founded on the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments, the religious leaders said, they and their Commandments should play a large and powerful role in government and be able to both take from the public purse and influence the courts and laws.
This assertion - that British common law and American law derived from the Ten Commandments - was particularly infuriating to the Founders.
First, there's the simple fact that there isn't that much overlap. Our laws don't specify a single god who must be worshipped, ban graven images, require us to take a day off work every week, mandate that we "honor" our parents, make it illegal for men to "covet" other men's wives or sleep with unmarried women, or make it illegal to lie (in fact, corporations have recently asserted the explicit "right to lie" under the First Amendment). The only things in common between the Commandments and most state or federal laws are prohibitions on killing and stealing, which most people figure have always been pretty obvious.
...
In a January 24, 1814 letter to John Adams, Jefferson went through a detailed lawyer's brief to show that the entire idea that the laws of both England and the United States came from Judaism, Christianity, or the Ten Commandments rests on a single man's mistranslation in 1658, often repeated, and totally false.
"It is not only the sacred volumes they [the churches] have thus interpolated, gutted, and falsified, but the works of others relating to them, and even the laws of the land," he wrote. "Our judges, too, have lent a ready hand to further these frauds, and have been willing to lay the yoke of their own opinions on the necks of others; to extend the coercions of municipal law to the dogmas of their religion, by declaring that these make a part of the law of the land."
...
It was a long-running topic of agreement between Jefferson and John Adams, who, on September 24, 1821, wrote to Jefferson noting their mutual hope that America would embrace a purely secular, rational view of what human society could become:
"Hope springs eternal. Eight millions of Jews hope for a Messiah more powerful and glorious than Moses, David, or Solomon; who is to make them as powerful as he pleases. Some hundreds of millions of Mussulmans expect another prophet more powerful than Mahomet, who is to spread Islamism over the whole earth. Hundreds of millions of Christians expect and hope for a millennium in which Jesus is to reign for a thousand years over the whole world before it is burnt up. The Hindoos expect another and final incarnation of Vishnu, who is to do great and wonderful things, I know not what." But, Adams noted, the hope for a positive future for America was - in his mind and Jefferson's - grounded in rationality and government, not in religion. "You and I hope for splendid improvements in human society, and vast amelioration in the condition of mankind," he wrote. "Our faith may be supposed by more rational arguments than any of the former."
And yet the true faith of our Founders - the faith in a secular political system uncontaminated by warlord presidents, wealthy corporations, or grasping religious leaders - is under attack once again.
...
Jefferson concluded his letter by denouncing the efforts of churchmen to seize the fledgling United States of America, and paraphrased a 1732 play by Henry Fielding, "The Lottery," in which a character says "Sing Tantararara, Fools all, Fools all," lamenting that in the lottery of life, the fools win out all too often.
"What a conspiracy this," Jefferson closed his 1824 letter to Cartwright, "between Church and State! Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all, Sing Tantarara, rogues all!"
Adolf Hitler and Bishop Müller must be smiling at Scalia's encouragement of the growing conflation of church and state in America
Scalia To Synagogue - Jews Are Safer With Christians In Charge: "by Thom Hartmann December 2, 2004
Antonin Scalia, the man most likely to be our next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, turned history on its head recently when he attended an Orthodox synagogue in New York and claimed that the Founders intended for their Christianity to play a part in government. Scalia then went so far as to suggest that the reason Hitler was able to initiate the Holocaust was because of German separation of church and state.
...
The Associated Press reported on November 23, 2004, "In the synagogue that is home to America's oldest Jewish congregation, he [Scalia] noted that in Europe, religion-neutral leaders almost never publicly use the word 'God.'"
"Did it turn out that," Scalia asked rhetorically, "by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America?" He then answered himself, saying, "I don't think so."
... ----------------------
The photos that can be seen, for instance, at www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm of the Catholic Bishops giving the collective Nazi salute. The annual April 20th celebration, declared by Pope Pius XII, of Hitler's birthday. The belt buckles of the German army, which declared "Gott Mit Uns" ("God is with us"). The pictures of the 1933 investiture of Bishop Ludwig Müller, the official Bishop of the 1000-Years-Of-Peace Nazi Reich. That last photo should be the most problematic for Scalia, because Hitler had done exactly what Scalia is recommending - he merged church and state.
Article 1 of the "Decree concerning the Constitution of the German Protestant Church, of 14 July 1933," signed by Adolf Hitler himself, merged the German Protestant Church into the Reich, and gave the Reich the legal authority to ordain priests.
Article Three provides absolute assurance to the new state church that the Reich will fund it, ...
..
That new state-sponsored German church's constitution opens: "At a time in which our German people are experiencing a great historical new era through the grace of God," the new German state church "federates into a solemn league all denominations that stem from the Reformation and stand equally legitimately side by side, and thereby bears witness to: 'One Body and One Spirit, One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father of All of Us, who is Above All, and Through All, and In All.'"
... ----------------------
The Puritans, for example, passed a law in Plymouth Colony in 1658 that said, "No Quaker Rantor or any other such corrupt person shall be a freeman in this Corporation [the state of Massachusetts]." Puritans banned Quakers from Massachusetts under pain of death, and, as Norman Cousins notes in his book about the faith of the Founders, In God We Trust, "And when Quakers persisted in returning [to Massachusetts] in defiance of law, and in practicing their religious faith, the Puritans made good the threat of death; Quaker women were burned at the stake."
...
Certainly the Founders wanted to protect government from being hijacked by the religious, as I noted in a previous article that quotes Jefferson on this topic. But several of them were even more concerned that the churches themselves would be corrupted by the lure of government's easy access to money and power.
... "We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government."
... Madison even objected to government giving money to churches to care for the poor. It would be the beginning of a dangerous mixture, he believed - dangerous both to government and churches alike. Thus, on February 21, 1811, President James Madison vetoed a bill passed by Con gress that authorized government payments to a church in Washington, DC to help the poor.
...
Thus, Madison said in his veto message to Congress, he was striking down the proposed law, "Because the bill vests and said incorporated church an also authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same;..." which, Madison said, "would be a precedent for giving to religious societies, as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."
...
But always, in Madison's mind, the biggest problem was that religion itself showed a long history of becoming corrupt when it had access to the levers of governmental power and money.
As he wrote to Edward Everett on March 18, 1823, "The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both..."
...
All of this - the merging of church and state - is now being aggressively promoted by no less than Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, in no less shocking a venue than the nation's oldest Orthodox synagogue.
In some distant place, Adolf Hitler and Bishop Müller must be smiling at Scalia's encouragement of the growing conflation of church and state in America. It's exactly what they worked so hard to achieve, and what helped make their horrors possible.
And Thomas Jefferson and James Madison must have tears in their eyes.
Antonin Scalia, the man most likely to be our next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, turned history on its head recently when he attended an Orthodox synagogue in New York and claimed that the Founders intended for their Christianity to play a part in government. Scalia then went so far as to suggest that the reason Hitler was able to initiate the Holocaust was because of German separation of church and state.
...
The Associated Press reported on November 23, 2004, "In the synagogue that is home to America's oldest Jewish congregation, he [Scalia] noted that in Europe, religion-neutral leaders almost never publicly use the word 'God.'"
"Did it turn out that," Scalia asked rhetorically, "by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America?" He then answered himself, saying, "I don't think so."
... ----------------------
The photos that can be seen, for instance, at www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm of the Catholic Bishops giving the collective Nazi salute. The annual April 20th celebration, declared by Pope Pius XII, of Hitler's birthday. The belt buckles of the German army, which declared "Gott Mit Uns" ("God is with us"). The pictures of the 1933 investiture of Bishop Ludwig Müller, the official Bishop of the 1000-Years-Of-Peace Nazi Reich. That last photo should be the most problematic for Scalia, because Hitler had done exactly what Scalia is recommending - he merged church and state.
Article 1 of the "Decree concerning the Constitution of the German Protestant Church, of 14 July 1933," signed by Adolf Hitler himself, merged the German Protestant Church into the Reich, and gave the Reich the legal authority to ordain priests.
Article Three provides absolute assurance to the new state church that the Reich will fund it, ...
..
That new state-sponsored German church's constitution opens: "At a time in which our German people are experiencing a great historical new era through the grace of God," the new German state church "federates into a solemn league all denominations that stem from the Reformation and stand equally legitimately side by side, and thereby bears witness to: 'One Body and One Spirit, One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Father of All of Us, who is Above All, and Through All, and In All.'"
... ----------------------
The Puritans, for example, passed a law in Plymouth Colony in 1658 that said, "No Quaker Rantor or any other such corrupt person shall be a freeman in this Corporation [the state of Massachusetts]." Puritans banned Quakers from Massachusetts under pain of death, and, as Norman Cousins notes in his book about the faith of the Founders, In God We Trust, "And when Quakers persisted in returning [to Massachusetts] in defiance of law, and in practicing their religious faith, the Puritans made good the threat of death; Quaker women were burned at the stake."
...
Certainly the Founders wanted to protect government from being hijacked by the religious, as I noted in a previous article that quotes Jefferson on this topic. But several of them were even more concerned that the churches themselves would be corrupted by the lure of government's easy access to money and power.
... "We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government."
... Madison even objected to government giving money to churches to care for the poor. It would be the beginning of a dangerous mixture, he believed - dangerous both to government and churches alike. Thus, on February 21, 1811, President James Madison vetoed a bill passed by Con gress that authorized government payments to a church in Washington, DC to help the poor.
...
Thus, Madison said in his veto message to Congress, he was striking down the proposed law, "Because the bill vests and said incorporated church an also authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same;..." which, Madison said, "would be a precedent for giving to religious societies, as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."
...
But always, in Madison's mind, the biggest problem was that religion itself showed a long history of becoming corrupt when it had access to the levers of governmental power and money.
As he wrote to Edward Everett on March 18, 1823, "The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both..."
...
All of this - the merging of church and state - is now being aggressively promoted by no less than Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, in no less shocking a venue than the nation's oldest Orthodox synagogue.
In some distant place, Adolf Hitler and Bishop Müller must be smiling at Scalia's encouragement of the growing conflation of church and state in America. It's exactly what they worked so hard to achieve, and what helped make their horrors possible.
And Thomas Jefferson and James Madison must have tears in their eyes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)