Pastors Guiding Voters to GOP | The Christian right seeks out members who might not go to the polls. The focus is issues, but some leaders don't oppose endorsement. | By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer | October 1, 2006
With a pivotal election five weeks away, leaders on the religious right have launched an all-out drive to get Christians from pew to voting booth. Their target: the nearly 30 million Americans who attend church at least once a week but did not vote in 2004.
Their efforts at times push legal limits on church involvement in partisan campaigns. That is by design. With control of Congress at stake Nov. 7, those guiding the movement say they owe it to God and to their own moral principles to do everything they can to keep social conservatives in power.
Preachers "ought to put their toe right on the line," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit law firm that supports conservative Christian causes.
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical in Texas, has recruited 5,000 "patriot pastors" nationwide to promote an agenda that aligns neatly with Republican platforms. "We urge them to avoid legal entanglement, but there are times in a pastor's life when he needs to take a biblical stand," Scarborough said. "Our higher calling is to Christ." ...
Monday, October 02, 2006
Saturday, September 30, 2006
The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.
Legislating Violations of the Constitution | By Erwin Chemerinsky | Special to washingtonpost.com | Saturday, September 30, 2006; 12:00 AM
With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.
A federal statute, 42 United States Code section 1988, provides that attorneys are entitled to recover compensation for their fees if they successfully represent a plaintiff asserting a violation of his or her constitutional or civil rights. For example, a lawyer who successfully sues on behalf of a victim of racial discrimination or police abuse is entitled to recover attorney's fees from the defendant who acted wrongfully. Any plaintiff who successfully sues to remedy a violation of the Constitution or a federal civil rights statute is entitled to have his or her attorney's fees paid. ...
...
Without this statute, there is no way to compensate attorneys who successfully sue for injunctions to stop unconstitutional government behavior. Congress rightly recognized that attorneys who bring such actions are serving society's interests by stopping the government from violating the Constitution. Indeed, the potential for such suits deters government wrong-doing and increases the likelihood that the Constitution will be followed.
...
Despite the effectiveness of this statute, conservatives in the House of Representatives have now passed an insidious bill to try and limit enforcement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by denying attorneys fees to lawyers who successfully challenge government actions as violating this key constitutional provision. For instance, a lawyer who successfully challenged unconstitutional prayers in schools or unconstitutional symbols on religious property or impermissible aid to religious groups would -- under the bill -- not be entitled to recover attorneys' fees. The bill, if enacted, would treat suits to enforce the Establishment Clause different from litigation to enforce all of the other provisions of the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes.
Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional. Since they cannot change the law of the Establishment Clause by statute, they have turned their attention to trying to prevent its enforcement by eliminating the possibility for recovery of attorneys' fees. ...
With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.
A federal statute, 42 United States Code section 1988, provides that attorneys are entitled to recover compensation for their fees if they successfully represent a plaintiff asserting a violation of his or her constitutional or civil rights. For example, a lawyer who successfully sues on behalf of a victim of racial discrimination or police abuse is entitled to recover attorney's fees from the defendant who acted wrongfully. Any plaintiff who successfully sues to remedy a violation of the Constitution or a federal civil rights statute is entitled to have his or her attorney's fees paid. ...
...
Without this statute, there is no way to compensate attorneys who successfully sue for injunctions to stop unconstitutional government behavior. Congress rightly recognized that attorneys who bring such actions are serving society's interests by stopping the government from violating the Constitution. Indeed, the potential for such suits deters government wrong-doing and increases the likelihood that the Constitution will be followed.
...
Despite the effectiveness of this statute, conservatives in the House of Representatives have now passed an insidious bill to try and limit enforcement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by denying attorneys fees to lawyers who successfully challenge government actions as violating this key constitutional provision. For instance, a lawyer who successfully challenged unconstitutional prayers in schools or unconstitutional symbols on religious property or impermissible aid to religious groups would -- under the bill -- not be entitled to recover attorneys' fees. The bill, if enacted, would treat suits to enforce the Establishment Clause different from litigation to enforce all of the other provisions of the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes.
Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional. Since they cannot change the law of the Establishment Clause by statute, they have turned their attention to trying to prevent its enforcement by eliminating the possibility for recovery of attorneys' fees. ...
Judge received death threats after ruling on intelligent design
Posted on Wed, Sep. 27, 2006 | Judge received death threats after ruling on intelligent design | Associated Press
LAWRENCE, Kan. - A judge who struck down a Dover, Penn., school board's decision to teach intelligent design in public schools said he was stunned by the reaction, which included death threats and a week of protection from federal marshals.
Pennsylvania U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III told an audience in Lawrence Tuesday that the case illustrated why judges must issue rulings free of political whims or hopes of receiving a favor.
In a 139-page decision last year, Jones ruled that the Dover school board intended to promote religion when it instituted a policy requiring students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. He ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
"And if you would have told me when I got on the bench four years ago that I would have death threats in a case like this as opposed to, for example, a crack cocaine case where I mete out a heavy sentence, I would have told you that you were crazy," he said. "But I did. And that's a sad statement."
Jones' ruling drew attention in Kansas, which was involved in a controversy over evolution last year, after the Kansas State Board of Education inserted criticisms of evolution into the state's science standards. ...
LAWRENCE, Kan. - A judge who struck down a Dover, Penn., school board's decision to teach intelligent design in public schools said he was stunned by the reaction, which included death threats and a week of protection from federal marshals.
Pennsylvania U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III told an audience in Lawrence Tuesday that the case illustrated why judges must issue rulings free of political whims or hopes of receiving a favor.
In a 139-page decision last year, Jones ruled that the Dover school board intended to promote religion when it instituted a policy requiring students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. He ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
"And if you would have told me when I got on the bench four years ago that I would have death threats in a case like this as opposed to, for example, a crack cocaine case where I mete out a heavy sentence, I would have told you that you were crazy," he said. "But I did. And that's a sad statement."
Jones' ruling drew attention in Kansas, which was involved in a controversy over evolution last year, after the Kansas State Board of Education inserted criticisms of evolution into the state's science standards. ...
Monday, September 18, 2006
ANTI-MOSLEM PROPGANDA ON THE RISE ... Rehov is a radical Zionist Jew who has written mainly about the plight of Israel ... few inaccuracies in Rehov's
ANTI-MOSLEM PROPGANDA ON THE RISE | Malcom Lagauche | September 15, 2006
Since 9-11-2001, we have seen anti-Moslem feelings rise immensely. Today, Moslems suffer the brunt of sick jokes and racist remarks, as well as violent actions. The general public in the U.S. is becoming much better at a trait in which it leads the world: xenophobia. A day doesn’t go by that is free of anti-Moslem statements, whether in a joke or in a speech of a politician.
I am the president of the Atheist Coalition of San Diego and I am active in civil rights for atheists. By law, in the U.S., we are not equal to believers.
Atheists do not believe in God. It’s a simple philosophy that believers have a hard time understanding. For some reason, people with a religion (mostly Christians) try to preach to us and show us the errors of our ways. Maybe someday they will have real faith in their religions and realize they don’t have to mouth off every few minutes about their faith.
We have a Yahoo group in which people post relevant articles. For instance, an atheist family in Oklahoma has recently undergone a terrible ordeal. The daughter, a high school cheerleader, was cut from the squad because she refused to say a prayer before a performance. When the father protested, he was accused of assault. Then, school officials made a "deal" for them. They would drop all charges if the family left town within one week. The family did not leave town. They fought the accusations in court and won. They did not back down.
Stories like this are posted on our Yahoo group. But, a few days ago, I was shocked to read a posting of an interview with a French film-maker. It is one of the most disgusting pieces I have seen about Moslems. Here is the piece. It is fairly long, but well worth the read.
...
I was aghast that an atheist would post such an interview. I researched Rehov’s career and discovered he is a rabid anti-Arab person and a militant Zionist. In addition, those in the U.S. who admire him are of the far right wing and Christian Dominionists (those who believe that the end of the world is near). Also, Jospeh Farah, the biggest right-wing nut case alive is a supporter of Rehov. Farah makes Pat Robertson seem like a radical left-wing civil rights activist.
It may seem odd that an atheist would be so upset about denigrating Islam, but atheists, for the most part, are not bigots. And, we are religiously neutral. Here is the response I sent to the person who posted the biased interview:
I read the interview with Pierre Rehov that you published on the Atheist Coalition group page. Did you do any research into Rehov? Or into the U.S. Congressman, Eric Cantor, whom he cites? The interview is outrageous in its assumptions and supposed facts.
Rehov is a radical Zionist Jew who has written mainly about the plight of Israel. His words are about as legitimate as if Osama Bin-Laden gave an interview on Jews. Cantor is a Zionist member of Congress who is considered the most pro-Israel member of the House. But, it is his other views that are scary: he is anti-immigration and supports the Minutemen; he supports the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; he opposed same-sex marriage and stem cell research; he has voted to eliminate any public funding for family planning (home and abroad); he voting record received a high 92% from the Christian Coalition. These are not the views of someone whom an atheist would cite for anything.
I will only bring out a few inaccuracies in Rehov's article. It would take me too much time to refute them all. He puts all Moslems in the same bag for everything. If you notice his words, they all adhere to the exact same philosophy.
Here is a preposterous statement:
The U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi
In reality, Israel has thumbed its nose at the U.N. Currently, there are at least 62 U.N. resolutions of which Israel is in violation. If the U.S. wants to bomb a country, it will cite one resolution of a country and use it as justification. However, it is mute on the 62 Israeli violations.
He mentions the 72 virgins that Moslems get on entering heaven. This is not true. There is nothing in the Koran or in any Islamic works that mention 72 virgins. This is just a convenient story made up to denigrate Moslems.
He says that Saddam Hussein paid suicide bombers' families $25.000. Again, this is a twisting of a fact. The Iraq government gave $25,000 to any Palestinian family who had a family member killed by Israelis. This included Christian families as well as Moslem families. From the time of 1999 to 2004, Palestinians killed 1,500 Israelis. This fact is brought up constantly by Israel. However, little mention is made of the number of Palestinians killed by Israel during this time. It exceed 10,000 deaths. That's a lot more than 1,500.
Rehov says all suicide bombings are for religion, not land. He is way off. Not one Moslem wants to convert Jews to Islam, and not one Jew wants to convert Moslems to Judaism. It is all about land and oppression, not religion. ...
...
Bigotry in the U.S. against Moslems is ascending rapidly. The stereotypes of Islam mentioned at all levels of U.S. society are ridiculous. However, the results are diabolical and will lead to many more violent incidents.
As an atheist, I do not admire certain tenets of Islam, as well as those of Christianity or Judaism. But, I would never use bogus arguments to denigrate anyone of any religion.
In my experiences with Moslems, I have had many an intelligent conversation in which the Moslem respects me and I respect him/her. Unfortunately, I have to say that I have had many negative conversations with Christians. To many of them, atheists represent all that is vile in society, yet they know nothing about atheism.
The interview I posted with Rehov has been widely circulated. Many right-wing Christian sites have run it. To them, it justifies their suspicion of Islam. To millions of people, Rehov’s views are the gospel. He said what the Christian fanatics want to hear. Unfortunately, it will take years to undo the harm done in one interview. ...
Since 9-11-2001, we have seen anti-Moslem feelings rise immensely. Today, Moslems suffer the brunt of sick jokes and racist remarks, as well as violent actions. The general public in the U.S. is becoming much better at a trait in which it leads the world: xenophobia. A day doesn’t go by that is free of anti-Moslem statements, whether in a joke or in a speech of a politician.
I am the president of the Atheist Coalition of San Diego and I am active in civil rights for atheists. By law, in the U.S., we are not equal to believers.
Atheists do not believe in God. It’s a simple philosophy that believers have a hard time understanding. For some reason, people with a religion (mostly Christians) try to preach to us and show us the errors of our ways. Maybe someday they will have real faith in their religions and realize they don’t have to mouth off every few minutes about their faith.
We have a Yahoo group in which people post relevant articles. For instance, an atheist family in Oklahoma has recently undergone a terrible ordeal. The daughter, a high school cheerleader, was cut from the squad because she refused to say a prayer before a performance. When the father protested, he was accused of assault. Then, school officials made a "deal" for them. They would drop all charges if the family left town within one week. The family did not leave town. They fought the accusations in court and won. They did not back down.
Stories like this are posted on our Yahoo group. But, a few days ago, I was shocked to read a posting of an interview with a French film-maker. It is one of the most disgusting pieces I have seen about Moslems. Here is the piece. It is fairly long, but well worth the read.
...
I was aghast that an atheist would post such an interview. I researched Rehov’s career and discovered he is a rabid anti-Arab person and a militant Zionist. In addition, those in the U.S. who admire him are of the far right wing and Christian Dominionists (those who believe that the end of the world is near). Also, Jospeh Farah, the biggest right-wing nut case alive is a supporter of Rehov. Farah makes Pat Robertson seem like a radical left-wing civil rights activist.
It may seem odd that an atheist would be so upset about denigrating Islam, but atheists, for the most part, are not bigots. And, we are religiously neutral. Here is the response I sent to the person who posted the biased interview:
I read the interview with Pierre Rehov that you published on the Atheist Coalition group page. Did you do any research into Rehov? Or into the U.S. Congressman, Eric Cantor, whom he cites? The interview is outrageous in its assumptions and supposed facts.
Rehov is a radical Zionist Jew who has written mainly about the plight of Israel. His words are about as legitimate as if Osama Bin-Laden gave an interview on Jews. Cantor is a Zionist member of Congress who is considered the most pro-Israel member of the House. But, it is his other views that are scary: he is anti-immigration and supports the Minutemen; he supports the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; he opposed same-sex marriage and stem cell research; he has voted to eliminate any public funding for family planning (home and abroad); he voting record received a high 92% from the Christian Coalition. These are not the views of someone whom an atheist would cite for anything.
I will only bring out a few inaccuracies in Rehov's article. It would take me too much time to refute them all. He puts all Moslems in the same bag for everything. If you notice his words, they all adhere to the exact same philosophy.
Here is a preposterous statement:
The U.N. has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi
In reality, Israel has thumbed its nose at the U.N. Currently, there are at least 62 U.N. resolutions of which Israel is in violation. If the U.S. wants to bomb a country, it will cite one resolution of a country and use it as justification. However, it is mute on the 62 Israeli violations.
He mentions the 72 virgins that Moslems get on entering heaven. This is not true. There is nothing in the Koran or in any Islamic works that mention 72 virgins. This is just a convenient story made up to denigrate Moslems.
He says that Saddam Hussein paid suicide bombers' families $25.000. Again, this is a twisting of a fact. The Iraq government gave $25,000 to any Palestinian family who had a family member killed by Israelis. This included Christian families as well as Moslem families. From the time of 1999 to 2004, Palestinians killed 1,500 Israelis. This fact is brought up constantly by Israel. However, little mention is made of the number of Palestinians killed by Israel during this time. It exceed 10,000 deaths. That's a lot more than 1,500.
Rehov says all suicide bombings are for religion, not land. He is way off. Not one Moslem wants to convert Jews to Islam, and not one Jew wants to convert Moslems to Judaism. It is all about land and oppression, not religion. ...
...
Bigotry in the U.S. against Moslems is ascending rapidly. The stereotypes of Islam mentioned at all levels of U.S. society are ridiculous. However, the results are diabolical and will lead to many more violent incidents.
As an atheist, I do not admire certain tenets of Islam, as well as those of Christianity or Judaism. But, I would never use bogus arguments to denigrate anyone of any religion.
In my experiences with Moslems, I have had many an intelligent conversation in which the Moslem respects me and I respect him/her. Unfortunately, I have to say that I have had many negative conversations with Christians. To many of them, atheists represent all that is vile in society, yet they know nothing about atheism.
The interview I posted with Rehov has been widely circulated. Many right-wing Christian sites have run it. To them, it justifies their suspicion of Islam. To millions of people, Rehov’s views are the gospel. He said what the Christian fanatics want to hear. Unfortunately, it will take years to undo the harm done in one interview. ...
New Documentary Features Controversial Bible Camp, Evangelical Movement ... "We're kinda being trained to be warriors,
Film Shows Youths Training to Fight for Jesus | By DAN HARRIS | New Documentary Features Controversial Bible Camp, Evangelical Movement
Sept. 17, 2006 — An in-your-face documentary out this weekend is raising eyebrows, raising hackles and raising questions about evangelizing to young people.
Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush — these are some of the activities at Pastor Becky Fischer's Bible camp in North Dakota, "Kids on Fire," subject of the provocative new documentary, "Jesus Camp."
"I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth."
"A lot of people die for God," one camper said, "and they're not afraid."
"We're kinda being trained to be warriors," said another, "only in a funner way."
The film has caused a split among evangelicals. Some say it's designed to demonize. Others have embraced it, including Fischer, who's helping promote the film. ...
Sept. 17, 2006 — An in-your-face documentary out this weekend is raising eyebrows, raising hackles and raising questions about evangelizing to young people.
Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush — these are some of the activities at Pastor Becky Fischer's Bible camp in North Dakota, "Kids on Fire," subject of the provocative new documentary, "Jesus Camp."
"I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth."
"A lot of people die for God," one camper said, "and they're not afraid."
"We're kinda being trained to be warriors," said another, "only in a funner way."
The film has caused a split among evangelicals. Some say it's designed to demonize. Others have embraced it, including Fischer, who's helping promote the film. ...
Friday, September 15, 2006
ush said yesterday that he senses a "Third Awakening" of religious devotion in the United States ...[coincident with "war" on terror.! ed]
Bush Tells Group He Sees a 'Third Awakening'
By Peter Baker |Washington Post Staff Writer |Wednesday, September 13, 2006; Page A05
President Bush said yesterday that he senses a "Third Awakening" of religious devotion in the United States that has coincided with the nation's struggle with international terrorists, a war that he depicted as "a confrontation between good and evil."
Bush told a group of conservative journalists that he notices more open expressions of faith among people he meets during his travels, and he suggested that might signal a broader revival similar to other religious movements in history. Bush noted that some of Abraham Lincoln's strongest supporters were religious people "who saw life in terms of good and evil" and who believed that slavery was evil. Many of his own supporters, he said, see the current conflict in similar terms.
"A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me," Bush said during a 1 1/2 -hour Oval Office conversation on cultural changes and a battle with terrorists that he sees lasting decades. "There was a stark change between the culture of the '50s and the '60s -- boom -- and I think there's change happening here," he added. "It seems to me that there's a Third Awakening."
The First Great Awakening refers to a wave of Christian fervor in the American colonies from about 1730 to 1760, while the Second Great Awakening is generally believed to have occurred from 1800 to 1830. ...
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
ame time, Gingrich was having an affair with a House staffer ...
Hypocrites and GOP values
Just when you thought Republicans couldn't say or do anything worse than in the past few months, two of them stepped over the line with gusto.
I'm talking about former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chair of the Broadcast Board of Governors, which controls Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other entities.
Gingrich, a Georgian flirting with a run for president in 2008, let his mouth run--again. At a party fundraiser in South Carolina, he said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California and currently minority leader, would bring "San Francisco values" to the House if Democrats regain control of the chamber.
What about "Gingrich values"? Forced to leave the House under a cloud of ethics problems, he sent all the wrong signals of conduct to members of his own party.
The thrice-married Gingrich was a cheerleader for the impeachment of President Clinton since the moralistic Republicans were outraged over his dalliances with Monica Lewinsky.
At the same time, Gingrich was having an affair with a House staffer. His middle name should be hypocrite. By the way, the aforementioned Pelosi has had one husband for a long time and not been touched by scandal.
...
Tomlinson, a former editor of Reader's Digest and a pal of Karl Rove's, must think a federal post is an entitlement program.
He has been accused of misusing taxpayer money, overbilling the government, and giving improper aid to a friend. One issue is that he signed invoices of nearly $250,000 for a friendly provider without the approval of the board. ...
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
AlterNet: Evangelical Conversion-for-Parole Program Thwarted [... close the preferred exit for Christians]
AlterNet: Evangelical Conversion-for-Parole Program Thwarted: "By Rob Boston, Church and State. Posted August 28, 2006.
The day after a federal court struck down a taxpayer-supported evangelical Christian program in an Iowa prison, Mark Earley, president of Prison Fellowship, issued a press statement. He was not pleased.
"The courts took God out of America's schools, now they are on the path to take God out of America's prisons," Earley groused.
Earley's analysis of judicial decisions dealing with religion and public schools was widely off the mark, but he had good reason to be upset about the recent ruling on public funds for inmate indoctrination. His organization, Prison Fellowship Ministries, founded by ex-Watergate felon Charles Colson, has been sponsoring the Iowa program for three years. If the ruling stands up on appeal, not only will Earley's group have to shut down the program, it will be required to repay the state of Iowa more than $1.5 million in public support it has received during that time.
The June 2 decision in Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries was a staggering loss not just for Earley's group but perhaps for key elements of President George W. Bush's "faith-based" initiative as well.
U.S. District Judge Robert W. Pratt didn't mince words. Officials at Iowa's Newton Correctional Facility had become, he wrote, far too entangled with religion by establishing a special wing for Prison Fellowship's InnerChange program. InnerChange, Pratt declared, is suffused with religion.
"The religion classes are not objective inquiries into the religious life, comparable to an adult study or college course, offered for the sake of discussing and learning universal secular, civic values or truths," Pratt wrote. "They are, instead, overwhelmingly devotional in nature and intended to indoctrinate InnerChange inmates into the Evangelical Christian belief system." ...
Thursday, August 17, 2006
A survey of 32 European countries, the US and Japan has revealed that only Turkey is less willing than the US to accept evolution as fact
Why doesn't America believe in evolution? - being-human - 19 August 2006 - New Scientist: "
Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false? This simple question is splitting America apart, with a growing proportion thinking that we did not descend from an ancestral ape. A survey of 32 European countries, the US and Japan has revealed that only Turkey is less willing than the US to accept evolution as fact.
Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false? This simple question is splitting America apart, with a growing proportion thinking that we did not descend from an ancestral ape. A survey of 32 European countries, the US and Japan has revealed that only Turkey is less willing than the US to accept evolution as fact.
Religious fundamentalism, bitter partisan politics and poor science education have all contributed to this denial of evolution in the US, says Jon Miller of Michigan State University in East Lansing, who conducted the survey with his colleagues. "The US is the only country in which [the teaching of evolution] has been politicised," he says. "Republicans have clearly adopted this as one of their wedge issues. In most of the world, this is a non-issue."
Miller's report makes for grim reading for adherents of evolutionary theory. Even though the average American has more years of education than when Miller began his surveys 20 years ago, the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005 (Science, vol 313, p 765). That's despite a series of widely publicised advances in genetics, including genetic sequencing, which shows strong overlap of the human genome with those of chimpanzees and mice. "We don't seem to be going in the right direction," Miller says. ...
Monday, August 14, 2006
Religion-related fraud getting worse - from 1998 to 2001 — the toll had risen to $2 billion
Religion-related fraud getting worse - Yahoo! News: "By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer Sun Aug 13, 3:53 PM ET
...
By the time Harding was unmasked as a fraud, he and his partners had stolen more than $50 million from their clients, and Crossroads became yet another cautionary tale in what investigators say is a worsening problem plaguing the nation's churches.
...
By the time Harding was unmasked as a fraud, he and his partners had stolen more than $50 million from their clients, and Crossroads became yet another cautionary tale in what investigators say is a worsening problem plaguing the nation's churches.
Billions of dollars has been stolen in religion-related fraud in recent years, according to the North American Securities Administrators Association, a group of state officials who work to protect investors.
Between 1984 and 1989, about $450 million was stolen in religion-related scams, the association says. In its latest count — from 1998 to 2001 — the toll had risen to $2 billion. Rip-offs have only become more common since.
"The size and the scope of the fraud is getting larger," said Patricia Struck, president of the securities association and administrator of the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Securities. "The scammers are getting smarter and the investors don't ask enough questions because of the feeling that they can be safe in church." ...
Saturday, August 12, 2006
U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution - Yahoo! News ... politicization of science and the literal interpretation of bible
U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution - Yahoo! News: " Ker Than | LiveScience Staff Writer | LiveScience.com Thu Aug 10, 5:45 PM ET
A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.
Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.
“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.
The researchers combined data from public surveys on evolution collected from 32 European countries, the United States and Japan between 1985 and 2005. Adults in each country were asked whether they thought the statement “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals,” was true, false, or if they were unsure. ...
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Perhaps the Christian Coalition has taken those T-shirts that ask "Who would Jesus bomb?"
A bad case of testosterone poisoning: "Wednesday, July 19, 2006
..
..
Anyway, those are considerations for a terrible day in the future, not an absurd day in the present, which yesterday brought me a message from the Christian Coalition of America.
Surely this would be a message consistent with the Prince of Peace, He who said: "Blessed are the peacemakers" and warned that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword. Well, this message wasn't that exactly.
It read: "Christian Coalition of America commends President George W. Bush for his unfailing and courageous support for the State of Israel in its latest war against the Israel-hating terrorist movement, specifically this time against Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists. .... If American fighter power is necessary to help Israel eliminate the Hezbollah threat in southern Lebanon, so be it."
So be it? Now, I happen to be sympathetic to the state of Israel, a plucky little democracy in a sea of extremists. I have a natural sympathy for the underdog, although I realize that underdogs and overdogs both have their fleas that make life difficult and troublesome.
But none of that compels me to think that the United States should intervene in the war that Israel is fighting with its enemies in Gaza and Lebanon. Not only is such a suggestion from a self-styled "Christian Coalition" startlingly at odds with the preaching of the Christ in the name Christian -- remember Him? -- it's also nuts, mad and crazy on its own terms. But enough of the carefully calibrated diplomatic language. This suggestion is lunatic.
What? Things are going so well for us in Iraq and Afghanistan that we can afford another war (with perhaps a conflict with Iran thrown in for good measure)? What? We can be the fair and honest brokers of the road map to peace when we have bombed the hell out of the people whom we want to use that map to secure a lasting peace?
Perhaps the Christian Coalition has taken those T-shirts that ask "Who would Jesus bomb?" a tad too literally....Friday, June 09, 2006
Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate ... Bible Belt is the breeding ground for broken marriage
The Ostroy Report: "Tuesday, June 06, 2006 | More Repuglican Hypocrisy: Bible Belt States Have the Highest Divorce Rates. And they Worry About Gay Marriage?"
Christian conservatives are hellbent on keeping gays from marrying, saying such same-sex unions are an affront to the great institution of marriage, threatening the very social, emotional and legal fabric which binds a man and woman in holy matrimony. Ironically however, it's these very same bible-thumpers who have the highest divorce rates in the country. The Bible Belt is the breeding ground for broken marriage.
Despite this fact, the right wing evangelical fanatics like to point to states like "liberal" Massachusetts, holding it up as some sort of Sodom and Gomorrah. To the contrary, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 per 1,000 population.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the states with the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt, where they exceed by 50% the national average of 4.2 per thousand people. The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, North and South Carolina, Florida, Arizona and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast-- where allegedly amoral, faithless, Volvo-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, NY Times-reading lefties are found--were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Rhode Island. ...
Christian conservatives are hellbent on keeping gays from marrying, saying such same-sex unions are an affront to the great institution of marriage, threatening the very social, emotional and legal fabric which binds a man and woman in holy matrimony. Ironically however, it's these very same bible-thumpers who have the highest divorce rates in the country. The Bible Belt is the breeding ground for broken marriage.
Despite this fact, the right wing evangelical fanatics like to point to states like "liberal" Massachusetts, holding it up as some sort of Sodom and Gomorrah. To the contrary, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 per 1,000 population.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the states with the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt, where they exceed by 50% the national average of 4.2 per thousand people. The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, North and South Carolina, Florida, Arizona and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast-- where allegedly amoral, faithless, Volvo-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, NY Times-reading lefties are found--were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Rhode Island. ...
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Ala. candidates argues that state judges should refuse to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedents
Ala. candidates revive judicial debate - Yahoo! News: "By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer Wed May 31, 2:00 PM ET BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -
In a debate with powerful echoes of the turbulent civil rights era, four Republicans running for Alabama's Supreme Court are making an argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state courts are not bound U.S. Supreme Court precedents.
...
Yet Justice Tom Parker, who is running for chief justice, argues that state judges should refuse to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedents they believe to be erroneous. Three other GOP candidates in Tuesday's primary have made nearly identical arguments.
"State supreme court judges should not follow obviously wrong decisions simply because they are `precedents,'" Parker wrote in a newspaper opinion piece in January that was prompted by a murder case that came before the Alabama high court.
...
Another candidate, Henry P. "Hank" Fowler, a member of Parker's staff, said conservative judges must stop surrendering to liberal Supreme Court opinions "without a word of protest." And lawyer Ben Hand said judges "can't just break the law and then point to the guy down the street in the black robe and say, `He told me to.'"...
Parker is a former aide to Roy Moore, who became a hero to the religious right when he was ousted as Alabama's chief justice in 2003 for refusing to obey a federal judge's order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state courthouse.
In a debate with powerful echoes of the turbulent civil rights era, four Republicans running for Alabama's Supreme Court are making an argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state courts are not bound U.S. Supreme Court precedents.
...
Yet Justice Tom Parker, who is running for chief justice, argues that state judges should refuse to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedents they believe to be erroneous. Three other GOP candidates in Tuesday's primary have made nearly identical arguments.
"State supreme court judges should not follow obviously wrong decisions simply because they are `precedents,'" Parker wrote in a newspaper opinion piece in January that was prompted by a murder case that came before the Alabama high court.
...
Another candidate, Henry P. "Hank" Fowler, a member of Parker's staff, said conservative judges must stop surrendering to liberal Supreme Court opinions "without a word of protest." And lawyer Ben Hand said judges "can't just break the law and then point to the guy down the street in the black robe and say, `He told me to.'"...
Parker is a former aide to Roy Moore, who became a hero to the religious right when he was ousted as Alabama's chief justice in 2003 for refusing to obey a federal judge's order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state courthouse.
Ala. candidates argues that state judges should refuse to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedents
Ala. candidates revive judicial debate - Yahoo! News: " By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer Wed May 31, 2:00 PM ET BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -
In a debate with powerful echoes of the turbulent civil rights era, four Republicans running for Alabama's Supreme Court are making an argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state courts are not bound U.S. Supreme Court precedents.
...
Yet Justice Tom Parker, who is running for chief justice, argues that state judges should refuse to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedents they believe to be erroneous. Three other GOP candidates in Tuesday's primary have made nearly identical arguments.
"State supreme court judges should not follow obviously wrong decisions simply because they are `precedents,'" Parker wrote in a newspaper opinion piece in January that was prompted by a murder case that came before the Alabama high court.
...
Another candidate, Henry P. "Hank" Fowler, a member of Parker's staff, said conservative judges must stop surrendering to liberal Supreme Court opinions "without a word of protest." And lawyer Ben Hand said judges "can't just break the law and then point to the guy down the street in the black robe and say, `He told me to.'"...
Parker is a former aide to Roy Moore, who became a hero to the religious right when he was ousted as Alabama's chief justice in 2003 for refusing to obey a federal judge's order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state courthouse.
In a debate with powerful echoes of the turbulent civil rights era, four Republicans running for Alabama's Supreme Court are making an argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state courts are not bound U.S. Supreme Court precedents.
...
Yet Justice Tom Parker, who is running for chief justice, argues that state judges should refuse to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedents they believe to be erroneous. Three other GOP candidates in Tuesday's primary have made nearly identical arguments.
"State supreme court judges should not follow obviously wrong decisions simply because they are `precedents,'" Parker wrote in a newspaper opinion piece in January that was prompted by a murder case that came before the Alabama high court.
...
Another candidate, Henry P. "Hank" Fowler, a member of Parker's staff, said conservative judges must stop surrendering to liberal Supreme Court opinions "without a word of protest." And lawyer Ben Hand said judges "can't just break the law and then point to the guy down the street in the black robe and say, `He told me to.'"...
Parker is a former aide to Roy Moore, who became a hero to the religious right when he was ousted as Alabama's chief justice in 2003 for refusing to obey a federal judge's order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state courthouse.
Ala. candidates argues that state judges should refuse to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedents
Ala. candidates revive judicial debate - Yahoo! News: " By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer Wed May 31, 2:00 PM ET
...
Another candidate, Henry P. "Hank" Fowler, a member of Parker's staff, said conservative judges must stop surrendering to liberal Supreme Court opinions "without a word of protest." And lawyer Ben Hand said judges "can't just break the law and then point to the guy down the street in the black robe and say, `He told me to.'"...
Parker is a former aide to Roy Moore, who became a hero to the religious right when he was ousted as Alabama's chief justice in 2003 for refusing to obey a federal judge's order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state courthouse.
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - In a debate with powerful echoes of the turbulent civil rights era, four Republicans running for Alabama's Supreme Court are making an argument legal scholars thought was settled in the 1800s: that state courts are not bound U.S. Supreme Court precedents.
...
Yet Justice Tom Parker, who is running for chief justice, argues that state judges should refuse to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedents they believe to be erroneous. Three other GOP candidates in Tuesday's primary have made nearly identical arguments.
...
Another candidate, Henry P. "Hank" Fowler, a member of Parker's staff, said conservative judges must stop surrendering to liberal Supreme Court opinions "without a word of protest." And lawyer Ben Hand said judges "can't just break the law and then point to the guy down the street in the black robe and say, `He told me to.'"...
Parker is a former aide to Roy Moore, who became a hero to the religious right when he was ousted as Alabama's chief justice in 2003 for refusing to obey a federal judge's order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the state courthouse.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Bush ... ' Explains How God Shapes His Foreign Policy
Bush Says He Tried to Avoid War 'To The Max,' Explains How God Shapes His Foreign Policy: "By E&P Staff | Published: April 24, 2006 4:45 PM ET
...
Bush also explained, in unusually stark terms, how his belief in God influences his foreign policy. "I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true," he said. "One, I believe there's an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody's soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free.
"I believe liberty is universal. I believe people want to be free. And I know that democracies do not war with each other."
A new CNN poll released today shows Bush with his lowest approval rating in any poll so far, at 32%. ...
...
Bush also explained, in unusually stark terms, how his belief in God influences his foreign policy. "I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true," he said. "One, I believe there's an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody's soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free.
"I believe liberty is universal. I believe people want to be free. And I know that democracies do not war with each other."
A new CNN poll released today shows Bush with his lowest approval rating in any poll so far, at 32%. ...
FDA grilled about Plan B contraceptive -- Newsday.com
FDA grilled about Plan B contraceptive -- Newsday.com: "BY KATHLEEN KERR | Newsday Staff Writer | April 24, 2006
Attorneys for a New York women's group plan to grill Food and Drug Administration officials this week about their failure to decide whether an emergency contraceptive pill called Plan B may be sold without a prescription.
...
Simon Heller, one of the attorneys, plans to quiz Woodcock about a March 23, 2004, staff memo suggesting she was concerned Plan B might lead to teenage promiscuity.
The FDA is only supposed to consider the safety and efficacy of drugs.
In the memo released by the FDA during the discovery process, Dr. Curtis Rosebraugh, an agency medical officer, wrote: "As an example, she stated that we could not anticipate, or prevent extreme promiscuous behaviors such as the medication taking on an 'urban legend' status that would lead adolescents to form sex-based cults centered around the use of Plan B."
Rosebraugh indicated he found no reason to bar nonprescription sales of Plan B.
"This was the level of scientific discourse, so to speak," Heller said in a phone interview, referring to concerns attributed to Woodcock. "I find it very odd that these people who are supposed to be responsible scientists and doctors are making up wacky reasons." ...
Attorneys for a New York women's group plan to grill Food and Drug Administration officials this week about their failure to decide whether an emergency contraceptive pill called Plan B may be sold without a prescription.
...
Simon Heller, one of the attorneys, plans to quiz Woodcock about a March 23, 2004, staff memo suggesting she was concerned Plan B might lead to teenage promiscuity.
The FDA is only supposed to consider the safety and efficacy of drugs.
In the memo released by the FDA during the discovery process, Dr. Curtis Rosebraugh, an agency medical officer, wrote: "As an example, she stated that we could not anticipate, or prevent extreme promiscuous behaviors such as the medication taking on an 'urban legend' status that would lead adolescents to form sex-based cults centered around the use of Plan B."
Rosebraugh indicated he found no reason to bar nonprescription sales of Plan B.
"This was the level of scientific discourse, so to speak," Heller said in a phone interview, referring to concerns attributed to Woodcock. "I find it very odd that these people who are supposed to be responsible scientists and doctors are making up wacky reasons." ...
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
“That is why federal agencies reject scientific reports ... sponsor not only faith-based social relief, but faith-based war,..science,...medicine"
AxisofLogic/ Featured: "George Bush’s Faith Based Thinking Has Proven Delusional and Divisive | By Lee Salisbury - Axis of Logic | Apr 12, 2006, 13:41
Bill Moyers, well-known producer of PBS’s NOW series, observed,
'One of the biggest changes in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of the power in Washington.”
Is Moyers equating ideology and theology with the delusional? How ironic that a long time Baptist who believes in orthodox Christian doctrine would consider “ideology and theology” delusional as it relates to governmental influence.
Moyers mirrors the concern of many religious and non-religious people. To embrace religion on a personal level is one thing. It is an entirely different matter to demand that particular religious beliefs dictate policy, legislation, and judicial appointments. Today, one cannot discuss politics apart from religious belief and faith. Moyers’ concern is about religious right clergy getting to impose their doctrinal beliefs on pliant politicians.
Northwestern University History Professor Gary Willis speaks of a, “fringe constellation of Republican interest groups.” He explains, “That is why federal agencies reject scientific reports on ecology, stem cell, contraceptive, and abortion issues. They sponsor not only faith-based social relief, but faith-based war, faith-based science, faith-based education, and faith-based medicine.”
Bill Moyers, well-known producer of PBS’s NOW series, observed,
'One of the biggest changes in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of the power in Washington.”
Is Moyers equating ideology and theology with the delusional? How ironic that a long time Baptist who believes in orthodox Christian doctrine would consider “ideology and theology” delusional as it relates to governmental influence.
Moyers mirrors the concern of many religious and non-religious people. To embrace religion on a personal level is one thing. It is an entirely different matter to demand that particular religious beliefs dictate policy, legislation, and judicial appointments. Today, one cannot discuss politics apart from religious belief and faith. Moyers’ concern is about religious right clergy getting to impose their doctrinal beliefs on pliant politicians.
Northwestern University History Professor Gary Willis speaks of a, “fringe constellation of Republican interest groups.” He explains, “That is why federal agencies reject scientific reports on ecology, stem cell, contraceptive, and abortion issues. They sponsor not only faith-based social relief, but faith-based war, faith-based science, faith-based education, and faith-based medicine.”
Americans must take a hard look at what the religious right’s faith-based input produces.
- The religious right’s middle east pro-war stance accommodates Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind vision--Armageddon- Jesus’ second coming, rapture scenario-- regardless of the cost or how many Americans and Iraqis are killed or maimed in the process.
- Reproductive choice is opposed because of an arbitrary, non-scientific religious definition of when life begins. Regardless of the fact that:
- the bible says Adam did not become a living soul until after he took his first breath,
- St. Augustine taught that a soul could not inhabit a formless body (zygote), and
- the Roman Catholic church endorsed St.Augustine’s pro-choice position for over 14 centuries, the religious right now seeks legislation criminalizing all who participate in abortion.
- The anti-gay marriage amendment, based solely on a few bible verses and religious bigotry, discriminates against the homosexual minority.
- End of life decisions, as in the Terry Schiavo case, would be regulated by law instead of by the individuals concerned and/or family because the religious right deems it a sin to accelerate death for the terminally ill.
- Pharmacist’s religious conscience determines whether a woman can purchase a doctor-prescribed morning after pill. Following this logic, what would happen if a pharmacist were a Christian Scientist?
- President Bush’s promise of $15 million for AIDES prevention to African nations remains denied to those nations which, contradictory to pro-life doctrine offer family planning and/or contraceptives.
- American youth receive the failed “abstinence only” program instead of comprehensive sex education because the religious right fear young people cannot make intelligent choices about sex.
- Science is demeaned because its evolutionary theory contradicts the bible.
- In spite of the Constitution’s Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust,” today’s candidates for office must prove their religious credentials as if religion were a test.
- President Bush’s funding of faith-based initiatives contradicts the Constitution’s 1st Amendment prohibition against the establishment of religion and America’s longstanding separation of church and state
Monday, April 10, 2006
The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians,
Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies - Los Angeles Times: "By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer | April 10, 2006
Many codes intended to protect gays from harassment are illegal, conservatives argue.
ATLANTA — Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.
Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.
Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.
With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian." ...
Many codes intended to protect gays from harassment are illegal, conservatives argue.
ATLANTA — Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.
Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.
Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.
With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.
The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian." ...
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Republican Party has become first religious party in U.S. history.: Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents rogue coalition
How the GOP Became God's Own Party: "By Kevin Phillips | Sunday, April 2, 2006; Page B03
Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.
We have had small-scale theocracies in North America before -- in Puritan New England and later in Mormon Utah. Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews.
...
Over a quarter-century of Bush presidencies and vice presidencies, the Republican Party has slowly become the vehicle of all three interests -- a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex. The three are increasingly allied in commitment to Republican politics. On the most important front, I am beginning to think that the Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents a rogue coalition, like the Southern, proslavery politics that controlled Washington until Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860. ...
Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.
We have had small-scale theocracies in North America before -- in Puritan New England and later in Mormon Utah. Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews.
...
Over a quarter-century of Bush presidencies and vice presidencies, the Republican Party has slowly become the vehicle of all three interests -- a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex. The three are increasingly allied in commitment to Republican politics. On the most important front, I am beginning to think that the Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents a rogue coalition, like the Southern, proslavery politics that controlled Washington until Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860. ...
Republican Party has become first religious party in U.S. history.: Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents rogue coalition
How the GOP Became God's Own Party: "By Kevin Phillips | Sunday, April 2, 2006; Page B03
Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.
We have had small-scale theocracies in North America before -- in Puritan New England and later in Mormon Utah. Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews.
...
Over a quarter-century of Bush presidencies and vice presidencies, the Republican Party has slowly become the vehicle of all three interests -- a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex. The three are increasingly allied in commitment to Republican politics. On the most important front, I am beginning to think that the Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents a rogue coalition, like the Southern, proslavery politics that controlled Washington until Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860. ...
Now that the GOP has been transformed by the rise of the South, the trauma of terrorism and George W. Bush's conviction that God wanted him to be president, a deeper conclusion can be drawn: The Republican Party has become the first religious party in U.S. history.
We have had small-scale theocracies in North America before -- in Puritan New England and later in Mormon Utah. Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews.
...
Over a quarter-century of Bush presidencies and vice presidencies, the Republican Party has slowly become the vehicle of all three interests -- a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex. The three are increasingly allied in commitment to Republican politics. On the most important front, I am beginning to think that the Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents a rogue coalition, like the Southern, proslavery politics that controlled Washington until Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860. ...
Santorum: Europe is Dying - [xenophobia? religious arrogance?]
Santorum: Europe is Dying - Santorum Exposed: The Blog: "Saturday, April 1. 2006
Rick Santorum spoke to the conservative Pennsylvania Leadership Conference last night. During his address he spoke about faith in the United States and compared it to the role of faith in western Europe. Here's what Rick claims is happening to western Europe because of secularism, 'Those cultures are dying. People are dying. They're being overrun from overseas... and they have no response. They have nothing to fight for. They have nothing to live for.'
On the other hand according to Rick, 'More people go to church on Sunday in America than go to all of the sporting events in America held in a year combined.' We're not sure where that statistic comes from or what it means, but Rick seems to find it reassuring. "
Rick Santorum spoke to the conservative Pennsylvania Leadership Conference last night. During his address he spoke about faith in the United States and compared it to the role of faith in western Europe. Here's what Rick claims is happening to western Europe because of secularism, 'Those cultures are dying. People are dying. They're being overrun from overseas... and they have no response. They have nothing to fight for. They have nothing to live for.'
On the other hand according to Rick, 'More people go to church on Sunday in America than go to all of the sporting events in America held in a year combined.' We're not sure where that statistic comes from or what it means, but Rick seems to find it reassuring. "
Saturday, April 01, 2006
UK: do not believe in a god to be 40% ... 5% of the US population feel that a god does not exist
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "
Atheism in the United Kingdom
A poll in 2004 by the BBC put the number of people who do not believe in a god to be 40%[10], while a YouGov poll in the same year put the percentage of non-believers at 35% with 21% uncertain.[11] In the YouGov poll men were less likely to believe in god than women and younger people were less likely to believe in god than older people.
In early 2004, it was announced that atheism would be taught during religious education classes in the United Kingdom.[12] A spokesman for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority stated: 'There are many children in England who have no religious affiliation and their beliefs and ideas, whatever they are, should be taken very seriously.' There is also considerable debate in the U.K. on the status of faith-based schools, which use religious as well as academic selection criteria.
Many prominent Britons are atheists, including scientists and philosophers such as Richard Dawkins.
[edit]
Atheism in the United States
A Gallup poll in 2005 showed 5% of the US population feel that a god does not exist.[13] A poll in 2004 by the BBC showed the number of people in the US who don't believe in God to be larger, at 10%.[10]
Atheists are ostensibly legally protected from discrimination in the United States. They have been among the strongest advocates of the legal separation of church and state. American courts have regularly, if controversially, interpreted the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state as protecting the freedoms of non-believers, as well as prohibiting the establishment of any state religion. Atheists often sum up the legal situation with the phrase: 'Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.'[14]"
Atheism in the United Kingdom
A poll in 2004 by the BBC put the number of people who do not believe in a god to be 40%[10], while a YouGov poll in the same year put the percentage of non-believers at 35% with 21% uncertain.[11] In the YouGov poll men were less likely to believe in god than women and younger people were less likely to believe in god than older people.
In early 2004, it was announced that atheism would be taught during religious education classes in the United Kingdom.[12] A spokesman for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority stated: 'There are many children in England who have no religious affiliation and their beliefs and ideas, whatever they are, should be taken very seriously.' There is also considerable debate in the U.K. on the status of faith-based schools, which use religious as well as academic selection criteria.
Many prominent Britons are atheists, including scientists and philosophers such as Richard Dawkins.
[edit]
Atheism in the United States
A Gallup poll in 2005 showed 5% of the US population feel that a god does not exist.[13] A poll in 2004 by the BBC showed the number of people in the US who don't believe in God to be larger, at 10%.[10]
Atheists are ostensibly legally protected from discrimination in the United States. They have been among the strongest advocates of the legal separation of church and state. American courts have regularly, if controversially, interpreted the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state as protecting the freedoms of non-believers, as well as prohibiting the establishment of any state religion. Atheists often sum up the legal situation with the phrase: 'Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.'[14]"
Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups
Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study : News Releases: UMNnews: U of M.: "Who: Penny Edgell, associate professor of sociology | Contact: Nina Shepherd, sociology media relations, (612) 599-1148 | Mark Cassutt University News Service, (612) 624-8038
MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (3/28/2006) -- American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.
From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.
Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.
Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism."
...
The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.
MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (3/28/2006) -- American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.
From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.
Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.
Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism."
...
The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)