RELIGION vs CONSTITUTION - What Faith Leaders Say

IMO:  Any attempt to make a religious belief into a law that punishes citizens for NOT practicing that belief is unconstitutional.  It is NOT allowing people to follow their beliefs and morals, it IS theocrasy.

"Faith leaders discuss how their religions approach the divisive issue of abortion" PBS NewsHour 8/11/2022

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  While many say the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v.  Wade is the answer to decades of prayer, some faith leaders fear their religious rights will be infringed amid new abortion restrictions.  Amna Nawaz spoke with three faith leaders about how their religions approach the issue of abortion.

AMERICA AT STAKE - Slow March to theocracy

Theocracy, Noun (countable and uncountable, plural theocracies)
Government under the control of a state-sponsored religion.
Like using State law to force others to follow a religious belief like 'human life begins at conception.'

"Is the Supreme Court looking to overturn Roe v Wade?  Here’s what one expert thinks" PBS NewsHour 5/17/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear arguments in a major abortion case that could roll back limits on abortion laws cemented by the landmark reproductive rights case Roe v Wade.  In its term beginning October, the court will consider a Mississippi state law banning abortions after 15 weeks.  John Yang discusses the matter with Mary Zieglar from Florida State University College of Law.

THE MARRAGE QUESTION - Vatican Turns Away From LGBTQ

"Could the Vatican’s decree on same-sex unions turn people away from church?" PBS NewsHour 3/16/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  After Pope Francis initially signaled support for same-sex unions, the Vatican decreed Monday that the Catholic Church cannot support them, saying God “cannot bless sin.”  The latest decree has disappointed LGBTQ advocates and cast doubt on the church’s acceptance of gay people.  Rev. Bryan Massingale, a professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University, joins Amna Nawaz to discuss.

U.S. SUPREME COURT - Indiana Abortion Law

"Why Supreme Court ruling on Ind.  abortion law reflects deep division" PBS NewsHour 5/28/2019

The slow march to theocracy, the Bible over the Constitution.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The legal fight over abortion rights in the U.S. took a turn at the Supreme Court Tuesday.  Justices ruled on an Indiana law stipulating how abortion providers dispose of fetal remains and prohibiting abortions performed on the basis of the gender, disability or race of the fetus.  Lisa Desjardins talks to the National Law Journal’s Marcia Coyle about what the ruling might mean.

"Planned Parenthood: ‘It’s simply not true’ Mo. abortion clinic breaks rules" PBS NewsHour 5/30/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Missouri is part of a recent wave of state laws that would ban abortion almost entirely, sometimes without exceptions for rape and incest.  The state is also making news on abortion for trying to deny its one remaining abortion provider, a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis, its license on grounds of alleged violations.  William Brangham talks to Planned Parenthood’s president, Dr. Leana Wen.

"Anti-abortion group says Mo. Planned Parenthood violated patient safety" PBS NewsHour 5/30/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The national abortion debate is raging with renewed fervor, as a series of states pass restrictive laws banning almost all instances of the procedure.  Among those states is Missouri, where officials are also trying to shutter its only remaining abortion provider, a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis.  William Brangham talks to Mallory Quigley of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List.

MARCH TO THEOCRACY - More Religions Exemptions

Theocracy = Bible over our Constitution, law by fundamentalist religion.  Forget your personal religious rights, and if you are a women you do not control your own body.

"Trump aims to expand religious and philosophical exemptions for health workers" PBS NewsHour 5/3/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump intends to expand rules that allow health care workers to opt out of participating in certain services on religious or moral grounds.  While conservatives celebrated what they call “conscience protections,” LGBTQ and women’s advocates warned the change would reduce services and cause patients harm.  Amna Nawaz talks to The New York Times' Margot Sanger-Katz for analysis.

THROUGH THE LENSES - "Handmaid's Tale"

"In dystopian 'Handmaid's Tale,' a warning for a new generation not to take rights for granted" PBS NewsHour 4/25/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  America's democracy and Constitution have been replaced by a theocratic autocracy where women have lost their rights and many of them have become property, valued and controlled for the ability to bear children for wealthy families.  That's the story of “The Handmaid's Tale,” a novel that's now a major television miniseries.  Jeffrey Brown talks to author Margaret Atwood and others.

THE RESISTANCE - Nationwide Anti-LGBT Federal Law!

An attempt to make America a theocracy.

"Government-protected religious belief" is EXACTLY what the First Amendment prohibits.  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." which what this proposed law would do.  Establish a Christian belief as law.

"Ted Cruz to introduce bill allowing discrimination against LGBT Americans nationwide" by Hunter, Daily KOS 12/21/2016

Led by Sen. Ted Cruz, Republicans will be wasting no time in their efforts to roll back civil rights for LGBT Americans.

[The First Amendment Defense Act] would prohibit the federal government from taking "discriminatory action" against any business or person that discriminates against LGBTQ people.  The act distinctly aims to protect the right of all entities to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on two sets of beliefs: "(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."

The intentionally broadly-written law would, in other words, enshrine the "right" of any private business to deny service to gay Americans outright if they are personally opposed to marriage equality.  It would not merely allow businesses to deny their services in same-sex marriage ceremonies themselves: it would allow any business to discriminate against any customer, gay or straight, for any service, whether it be selling them gasoline or a hamburger, if a pseudo-religious reason can be attached to it.

The customer likely doesn't even have to be gay.  The business can simply declare that they believe that customer might be an unmarried fornicator or a single parent, or perhaps declare that serving a particular customer might nebulously benefit some gay American later on.  The law makes no mention of religious beliefs that are not hostile to LGBT Americans or equality; the religious belief declaring LGBT equality to be sinful is elevated as the only government-protected religious belief on the subject that will be tolerated.

It is an un-American and deeply anti-First-Amendment bill, which is of course why Sen. Ted Cruz and team are quite certain they will be able to gain the support of their Republican colleagues and their new anti-civil rights President.

It is roughly equivalent to efforts sponsored in Republican-led states like North Carolina and Mike Pence's Indiana, all of which have been tied up in courts or resulted in gargantuan corporate and private boycotts of those states.

It's stupid as hell, and a reminder that Ted Freaking Cruz is a rancid little un-American grub of a man who was foisted onto the nation by a Republican base so riddled with paranoia that they are willing to support any malevolent act or actor if they think doing so will cause harm to Americans they don't like.

As usual.

NEWSHOUR BOOKSHELF - "The Lovers" a Lesson on Theocracy

"A chronicle of Afghanistan's modern-day Romeo and Juliet" PBS NewsHour 3/7/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Zakia and Ali are Afghanistan’s Romeo and Juliet -- with all the heartache that description implies.  Separated by religion, ethnicity and their own families, the young couple defied them all by eloping.  Rod Nordland of the New York Times chronicles their remarkable odyssey in his book, “The Lovers,” and joins Jeffrey Brown to discuss the intersection of romance and religion in the Muslim world.

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  Zakia and Ali first came to the world’s attention in the pages of The New York Times in 2014.  Later, the paper would capture their story on video.

They had grown up on adjacent potato farms in Afghanistan’s remote mountain province of Bamiyan, playing together as children, and, as teenagers, falling in love.

ZAKIA (through interpreter):  At first, I wasn’t aware of my feelings, because I didn’t know him.  I was very young and didn’t understand these things.  When I was out in the farm fields, he wrote his cell phone number and gave it to me.  Then we talked on the phone and he said, “I love you,” and we got to know each other and started to love each other.

ALI (through interpreter):  It looked to me that it wasn’t possible for us to get together.

JEFFREY BROWN:  Indeed, it was prohibited because of the Afghan custom of arranged marriages and by Islamic law.  The two were separated by religion and ethnicity, she a Sunni and Tajik, he a Shiite and Hazara.

When their love became known, the couple, especially Zakia, faced condemnation, beatings and later the threat of death from her family.

ROD NORDLAND, Author, “The Lovers”:  Her family were not wealthy, but they were big and they were numerous.  And they — on their side, in their quest to kill her, they had a very powerful weapon, and that was the knowledge that nobody has ever been successfully prosecuted for an honor killing in Afghanistan.

JEFFREY BROWN:  A new book tells the story.

It’s called “The Lovers: Afghanistan’s Romeo and Juliet,” by New York Times Kabul bureau chief Rod Nordland.  Nordland wrote the original article and a number of follow-ups.

We met recently at the Sackler Gallery in Washington, D.C., as a new exhibition on Afghanistan art, Turquoise Mountain, was being installed.

Nordland told me he'd been looking for a way to report on so-called honor killings, the murder of young women by their own families for causing them shame.
-----
ROD NORDLAND:  When it comes to a lot of these abusive customary practices, that’s right.  They’re still as prevalent as they once were.

Honor killing, child brides, the practice of baad, when a little girl is sold to pay a family debt, often a debt for some moral crime that a male relative has carried out.  It would be unfair to say there hasn’t been improvement, because there are millions of girls in schools that didn’t exist during the Taliban time.

Still, when you look at the metrics, Afghanistan still remains the worst place in the world to be born a woman, in life expectancy, maternal mortality, anything.  And you look at it, and that’s pretty shocking, considering the investment that we have tried to make in bettering women’s lives.

COMMENT:  This should be a warning against the extreme Christian Conservative movement to force everyone to abide by their beliefs (gay marriage, abortion, etc).

IRAN POLITICS - Choosing Next Supreme Leader

REMINDER:  Iran today is a Theocracy, government by religion (where religious law trumps all civil law).  As I understand Iranian politics the current "Guardian Council" has veto power over laws, which would include WHO can be selected.

"How will Iran choose its next Supreme Leader?" PBS NewsHour 2/19/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Iranians will go to the polls next week to choose a new Parliament, as well as select the council that will in turn choose the country's next Supreme Leader after Ayatollah Khamenei's death.  But how will the recent nuclear deal with the U.S. affect voting?  William Brangham talks to NPR's Steve Inskeep, who has just returned from a research trip in Iran, for more on the political scene there.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM (NewsHour):  The signing of the landmark nuclear deal with Iran was supposed to begin a new era of relations between Iran and the West.  The deal would free Iran from decades of crippling economic sanctions, while giving the West some confidence that Iran won't be able to develop a nuclear weapon.

Many in the United States, however, remain wary of Iran's intentions, including virtually all the Republican candidates running for president.  They all vow to renegotiate the agreement.

But what is happening inside Iran?

National Public Radio's Steve Inskeep is just back from a reporting trip, and he joins me now.

Steve, welcome back.  And welcome to the show.

STEVE INSKEEP, NPR:  Thanks.  Glad to be here.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM:  The nuclear deal has been signed.  Iran is freed somewhat from these sanctions.

What is it like there?  Are things getting better for Iranians?

STEVE INSKEEP:  No, not in day-to-day life, not yet.

In fact, in talking with people on the street, which I find to be one of the most productive things to do when traveling to Iran, I find a lot of pessimism.  People have gone through years of economic suffering.  Many people have disagreed with the political direction of their government.

And even though things are moving, in their point of view, in a more optimistic direction, it's very slow.  And of course it's too early to see any concrete economic results from the end of sanctions that just happened a few weeks ago.

There was a time when people were saying just the anticipation of the end of sanctions was improving Iran's economy, but that seems not to have trickled down to ordinary people.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM:  But I don't understand.  Rouhani was elected in no small part to eliminate sanctions, to improve relations with the West, to try to make the economy better.  Is this the sense that it's not happening fast enough or not enough?

STEVE INSKEEP:  That is exactly right.

There is this residue of support for Hassan Rouhani.  I even found people in centers of support for the prior president, who was very different, who said, yes, I support Rouhani.  I'm with Rouhani.

But I think more liberal people or Western-facing people who want much greater openness, who want much greater change have been disappointed not to see more.

CONSTITUTION - Military Evangelicals

This is more deviance of Evangelical Christian fundamentalists want America to become a Christian theocracy, which would mean "kiss your religious freedom good by."

This is the Christian fundamentalist equivalent to the goal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and what Iran is today, a suppressive Muslim theocracy.

Note that NOT ALL Christians believe as these fundamentalist do.

"U.S. Soldiers Punished for Not Attending Christian Concert" by Chris Rodda, Huffington Post 8/26/2010

For the past several years, two U.S. Army posts in Virginia, Fort Eustis and Fort Lee, have been putting on a series of what are called Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concerts. As I've written in a number of other posts, "spiritual fitness" is just the military's new term for promoting religion, particularly evangelical Christianity. And this concert series is no different.

On May 13, 2010, about eighty soldiers, stationed at Fort Eustis while attending a training course, were punished for opting out of attending one of these Christian concerts. The headliner at this concert was a Christian rock band called BarlowGirl, a band that describes itself as taking "an aggressive, almost warrior-like stance when it comes to spreading the gospel and serving God."

Any doubt that this was an evangelical Christian event was cleared up by the Army post's newspaper, the Fort Eustis Wheel, which ran an article after the concert that began:

Following the Apostle Paul's message to the Ephesians in the Bible, Christian rock music's edgy, all-girl band BarlowGirl brought the armor of God to the warriors and families of Fort Eustis during another installment of the Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concert Series May 13 at Jacobs Theater.

The father of the three Barlow sisters who make up the band was also quoted in the article, saying, "We really believe that to be a Christian in today's world, you have to be a warrior, and we feel very blessed and privileged that God has given us the tool to deliver His message and arm His army."

A few days later, some of the soldiers punished for choosing not to attend this concert contacted the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF). The following is from the account sent by one of those soldiers to MRFF, detailing what transpired that night.

The week prior to the event the [unit name and NCO's name withheld] informed us of a Christian rock event that was about to take place on Thursday the 13th.

"On Thursday 13th at 1730 we were informed that instead of being dismissed for the day, the entire company (about 250 soldiers) would march as a whole to the event. Not only that, but to make sure that everyone is present we were prohibited from going back to the barracks (to eliminate the off chance that some might "hide" in their rooms and not come back down).

We were marched as a whole to chow and were instructed to reform outside the dining facility. A number of soldiers were disappointed and restless. Several of us were of different faith or belief. A couple were particularly offended (being of Muslim faith) and started considering to disobey the order.

From the dining facility we were marched back to the company area. There was a rumor circulating that we may be given a choice later on to fall out or attend. Though it was only a rumor it was also a small hope enough to allow us to follow along a little longer before choosing to become disobedient. We were marched back to the company area. To our dismay there was still no sign of us having a choice.

We started marching to the theater. At that point two Muslim soldiers fell out of formation on their own. Student leadership tried to convince them to fall back in and that a choice will be presented to us once we reach the theater.

At the theater we were instructed to split in two groups; those that want to attend versus those that don't. At that point what crossed my mind is the fact that being given an option so late in the game implies that the leadership is attempting to make a point about its intention. The "body language" was suggesting that "we marched you here as a group to give you a clue that we really want you to attend (we tilt the table and expect you to roll in our direction), now we give you the choice to either satisfy us or disappoint us." A number of soldiers seemed to notice these clues and sullenly volunteered for the concert in fear of possible consequences.

Those of us that chose not to attend (about 80, or a little less that half) were marched back to the company area. At that point the NCO issued us a punishment. We were to be on lock-down in the company (not released from duty), could not go anywhere on post (no PX, no library, etc). We were to go to strictly to the barracks and contact maintenance. If we were caught sitting in our rooms, in our beds, or having/handling electronics (cell phones, laptops, games) and doing anything other than maintenance, we would further have our weekend passes revoked and continue barracks maintenance for the entirety of the weekend. At that point the implied message was clear in my mind "we gave you a choice to either satisfy us or disappoint us. Since you chose to disappoint us you will now have your freedoms suspended and contact chores while the rest of your buddies are enjoying a concert."

At that evening, nine of us chose to pursue an EO complaint. I was surprised to find out that a couple of the most offended soldiers were actually Christian themselves (Catholic). One of them was grown as a child in Cuba and this incident enraged him particularly as it brought memories of oppression.

The account of another soldier who did not attend the concert, which relates the same sequence of events and punishment that occurred, also adds that some of the soldiers who did decide to attend only did so due to pressure from their superiors and fear of repercussions.

At the theater is the first time our options were presented to us. And they were presented to us in a way that seemed harmless, we could either go to the show, or go to the barracks. But at that point, I felt pressured. As a person, I know that I can't be pressured into anything, I'm much stronger than that. But I also know that a lot of people aren't that strong, and that pressure was present. I could hear people saying, "I don't know about going back to the barracks, that sounds suspicious, I'm going to go ahead and go to the show" and many things that sounded a lot like that. Now, like I said, I don't get pressured into things, but I also don't think that anybody should have to feel that kind of pressure. Making somebody feel that pressure is a violation of human rights, we are allowed to think what we want about religion and not have to feel pressured into doing things, and at that moment there was definitely pressure to go to that concert simply because people don't want to have their free time taken away.

The Commanding General's Spiritual Fitness Concert Series was the brainchild of Maj. Gen. James E. Chambers, who, according to an article on the Army.mil website, "was reborn as a Christian" at the age of sixteen. According to the article, Chambers held the first concert at Fort Lee within a month of becoming the commanding general of the Combined Arms Support Command and Fort Lee in June 2008. But he had already started the series at Fort Eustis, as the previous commanding general there. The concerts have continued at Fort Eustis under the new commanding general, as well as spreading to Fort Lee under Maj. Gen. Chambers. The concerts are also promoted to the airmen on Langley Air Force Base, which is now part of Joint Base Langley-Eustis.

In the Army.mil article, Maj. Gen. Chambers was quoted as saying, "The idea is not to be a proponent for any one religion. It's to have a mix of different performers with different religious backgrounds." But there has been no "mix of different performers with different religious backgrounds" at these concerts. Every one of them has had evangelical Christian performers, who typically not only perform their music but give their Christian testimony and read from the Bible in between songs.

Another problem with these concerts, besides the issues like soldiers being punished for choosing not to attend them, is that they are run by the commanders, and not the chaplains' offices. It is absolutely permissible for a chaplain's office to put on a Christian concert. It is not permissible for the command to put on a Christian concert, or any other religious event. Having a religious concert series that is actually called and promoted as a Commanding General's Concert Series is completely over the top.

And then there's the cost. These concerts aren't just small events with local Christian bands. We're talking about the top, nationally-known, award-winning Christian artists, with headline acts costing anywhere from $30,000 to $100,000, and even many of the opening acts being in the $10,000 range.

The cost of these concerts led MRFF's research department to start looking at some of the DoD contracts for other "spiritual fitness" events and programs, and what we found was astounding. One contract, for example, awarded to an outside consulting firm to provide "spiritual fitness" services, was for $3.5 million.

MRFF was already aware that exorbitant amounts of DoD funding were going to the hiring of civilian religious employees by military installations, the expenses of religious (almost exclusively evangelical Christian) programs, and extravagant religious facilities, but the extent of this spending goes far beyond what we had initially thought it amounted to. Therefore, MRFF has decided to launch an investigation into exactly how much the military is spending on promoting religion.

Do the recently announced plans of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to trim defense spending include any trimming of the military's outrageous spending on the promoting of religion and evangelizing of our troops? This alone could save the DoD untold millions every year, and go a long way towards upholding our Constitution at the same time.

OUR RIGHTS - More Proof of Religious Nazism

"University investigates threatening e-mails condemning evolution" by Jerrrey Wolf, 9 News Colorado

University of Colorado police are investigating threatening e-mails with anti-evolution messages sent to biology professors at the Boulder campus.

Police Commander Brad Wiesley says the e-mails claim be from a religious group but investigators don't know whether more than one person was behind them.

He said the e-mails were considered threatening and made reference to killing people who back evolutionary theory. He said they didn't contain any specific threat against any individuals.

"The people that are worried in biology are certainly concerned. I mean it's not every day they're threatened by somebody who doesn't agree with the work that they're doing and so there's heightened concern," said Wiesley.

Some professors had been receiving critical e-mails for more than a year, but the tone became more threatening last week and they reported them to police.

Then, last weekend, someone slid anti-evolution materials under the doors of offices and laboratories of the building housing the ecology and evolutionary biology department.

"We just try and keep a cool nerve and basically not try and take any action ourselves, just report it to the department heads or security," said Michael Robeson, a CU graduate student.

"Christian Right Activists Disrupt Hindu Chaplain In The Senate" by Eric Kleefeld, TPM Cafe

Today was a historic first for religion in America's civic life: For the very first time, a Hindu delivered the morning invocation in the Senate chamber — only to find the ceremony disrupted by three Christian right activists.

The three protesters, who all belong to the Christian Right anti-abortion group Operation Save America, and who apparently traveled to Washington all the way from North Carolina, interrupted by loudly asking for God's forgiveness for allowing the false prayer of a Hindu in the Senate chamber.

"Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight," the first protester began.

"This is an abomination," he continued. "We shall have no other gods before You."

Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), serving as the presiding officer for the morning, immediately ordered them taken away — though they continued to yell at the Hindu cleric as they were headed out the door, shouting out phrases such as, "No Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "There's only one true God!"

The cleric, Rajan Zed of Reno, Nevada, was visibly nervous and uncomfortable as he then delivered the morning prayer. But to his credit, he soon regained his footing and was able to make it through in a dignified fashion.

For their part, Operation Save America put out an interesting press release, claiming responsibility for the protests and castigating Senators for not joining in:

• Theology Moved to the Senate and was Arrested



• Theology has moved from the church house onto the floor of the United States Senate, and has been arrested.



• Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar were all arrested in the chambers of the United States Senate as that chamber was violated by a false Hindu god. The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers.



• "Not one Senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! There were three in the audience with the courage to stand and proclaim, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' They were immediately removed from the chambers, arrested, and are in jail now. God bless those who stand for Jesus as we know that He stands for them." Rev. Flip Benham, Director, Operation Save America/Operation Rescue.

Typical rantings of those who cannot clime to believe in our Constitutional protected right to freedom of religion. That religious practice is an individual's right, not a right of any group to use the government to impose their beliefs on others.

They are, NO MATTER WHAT THEY CLAIM, supporting a Taliban-style government, but based on their fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

RELIGION: "Good" Christians

"Good Christians" by Dr. Forbush, Bring it On!

On Sunday all “good” Christians go to church. I don’t know if I would be so bold to declare myself a “good” Christian, but going to church on Sunday continues to be something our family rarely misses. As I have said before, I am Catholic, so the guilt of weekly attendance has been worked deeply into my psyche.

The mixture of politics with religion has always troubled me. Politics always seemed to be man’s business, while religion always seemed to be God’s business. The main problem tends to be that collecting God’s answers on every perceivable issue is mostly impossible. Jesus tells us to take care of the poor and sick, but he doesn’t tell us how we should do that. Man has created many ways to take care of the poor and sick, but it isn’t always clear that giving handouts to people is always the most effective way to persuade someone to contribute to society. And, when power comes to the battle, individuals will push their own ideas over the most effective ideas for society. And, worst of all, when someone declares that their own personal idea is the “Christian” solution or God’s solution there is no possible way to know if that is true or not, because man can not ever know what is in God’s mind.

It bothers me when any religion expends an enormous amount of energy fighting for an issue that isn’t even a critical issue. Abortion and homosexuality come to mind quickly. These two issues have very little support in the Bible, and it is clear that religious people that have opinions on these issues use bizarre Biblical readings to support the conclusion they have already decided in advance. The proof of this is in the lack of such a strong response to issues that are out rightly declared in the Bible. For example, divorce, war and the care for the poor and sick are declared as critical issues many more times in the Bible than the “evils” of homosexuality and abortion. But, religious groups have used abortion and homosexuality as litmus tests to determine whether someone is a “good” Christian. Does this even make any sense?

...there's more.

He is correct. These people believe themselves to be "good" Christians but support the Iraq war? They are "good" Christians but allow and support a law that prevents Medicare from negotiating drug pricing? They are "good" Christians but don't fight to raise the minimum wage, for years?

You are correct, Dr. Forbush, it does not make sense. It is a self-righteous facade.

POLITICS - Decoding the Religious-Right Agenda

"Decoding the 'Marriage Protection Amendment'" by Steve Horowitz, Counterbias

Once again, George Bush lifts his leg on the tree of liberty

Conservatives love their code words. But then, they need them. They can't call their priorities what they are: intolerance masquerading as morality. So their propagandists devise signifiers like "traditional values," and conservatives claim all "values" for themselves, because apparently only they know what the traditions are.

Or they call themselves pro-life, when the only thing they're pro- is their own personal opinions being shoved down the throats of everyone else.

Being forced to acquiesce in prayer at school, even if it contradicts your beliefs? "Honoring God."

Then there's my favorite: "judicial activism," at best an expansive catch-all covering any court decision they disagree with, at worst an attack on the very concept of judicial review.

Of course, this week you'll be hearing a lot about the "Marriage Protection Amendment," as the Senate debates a resolution that has no chance of passing. "Marriage protection" is a code phrase implying, as Social Security "reform" implied that something was wrong with it, that marriage is in mortal danger -- the danger being the possibility of the lesbian couple in that nice house down the block having their love and legal rights officially recognized.

The threat is so dire, apparently, that the president of the United States, with his characteristic courage, has to tackle it head-on. As he said in his June 3 radio address:

"Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith."

Okay, if you say so ...

"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."

Can't really argue that ...

"Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society."

Huh?

Who's arguing for marriage to be cut off from its roots? Isn't gay marriage an offshoot, a new branch, so to speak, of this ever-growing, evergreen, apparently tree-like institution?

See, this is where the "values" fanatics lose me. They want me to think that queers are out to chop down the marriage tree, when it seems to me they admire it so much that they want to enjoy its shade like everybody else.

(I apologize for overdoing the botanical metaphors, but that damn Bush {oops!} started it.)

Problem is, conservatives don't like to share. That would mean that other people -- different kinds of people, with different beliefs and priorities -- are as deserving of life's blessings as they are. Goodbye, feelings of righteousness and superiority. Hello, unrestricted Jeffersonian liberty.

And if values voters can't feel self-righteous and superior, what's left for them? Only the fleeting consolation that their president, with his poll numbers at Nixonian lows and midterms looming, is finally pandering to them, his once-trusting base, once again -- by appealing to their basest instincts, by not only excusing and promoting bigotry and intolerance, but by again denigrating a co-equal branch of government:

"In a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts. The American people have spoken clearly on this issue, both through their representatives and at the ballot box ... Today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage ... An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice," he said in his Saturday radio address, unaware in his unabashed ignorance that, as "activist courts" proved during the civil rights era, one of the most important functions of the judiciary is to guard against what De Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill called "the tyranny of the majority."

But then, "values voters" find such subtleties irksome. And a simpleton like George W. Bush is simply incapable of comprehending them. What the uniter-not-divider, our esteemed decider, does understand is hate. And fear. Which is how the worst in us got us our worst president.

"As this debate goes forward, we must remember that every American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect and dignity," Bush said Saturday.

Right, George. You are so full of fertilizer.

POLITICS - "Christian Nationalism" aka Christian Theocracy

"Tyranny of the Christian Right" by Michelle Goldberg, AlterNet

The largest and most powerful mass movement in the nation -- evangelical Christianity -- has set out to destroy secular society.

It's one thing to have a government that shows contempt for civil liberties; America has survived such men before. It's quite another to have a mass movement -- the largest and most powerful mass movement in the nation -- rise up in opposition to the rights of its fellow citizens. The Constitution protects minorities, but that protection is not absolute; with a sufficiently sympathetic or apathetic majority, a tightly organized faction can get around it.

The mass movement I've described aims to supplant Enlightenment rationalism with what it calls the "Christian worldview." The phrase is based on the conviction that true Christianity must govern every aspect of public and private life, and that all -- government, science, history and culture -- must be understood according to the dictates of scripture. There are biblically correct positions on every issue, from gay marriage to income tax rates, and only those with the right worldview can discern them. This is Christianity as a total ideology -- I call it Christian nationalism. It's an ideology adhered to by millions of Americans, some of whom are very powerful. It's what drives a great many of the fights over religion, science, sex and pluralism now dividing communities all over the country.

Note that this is what Fundamentalist Islam espouses, a world where Islamic Law governs everything. This is the view Muslim Terrorists fight for. So, doesn't that make Evangelical Christianity the equivalent, Christian Terrorists? People who want to make America a Christian Theocracy (an Evangelical one at that)?

I am not suggesting that religious tyranny is imminent in the United States. Our democracy is eroding and some of our rights are disappearing, but for most people, including those most opposed to the Christian nationalist agenda, life will most likely go on pretty much as normal for the foreseeable future. Thus for those who value secular society, apprehending the threat of Christian nationalism is tricky. It's like being a lobster in a pot, with the water heating up so slowly that you don't notice the moment at which it starts to kill you.

If current trends continue, we will see ever-increasing division and acrimony in our politics. That's partly because, as Christian nationalism spreads, secularism is spreading as well, while moderate Christianity is in decline. According to the City University of New York Graduate Center's comprehensive American religious identification survey, the percentage of Americans who identify as Christians has actually fallen in recent years, from 86 percent in 1990 to 77 percent in 2001. The survey found that the largest growth, in both absolute and percentage terms, was among those who don't subscribe to any religion. Their numbers more than doubled, from 14.3 million in 1990, when they constituted 8 percent of the population, to 29.4 million in 2001, when they made up 14 percent.

"The top three 'gainers' in America's vast religious marketplace appear to be Evangelical Christians, those describing themselves as Non-Denominational Christians and those who profess no religion," the survey found. (The percentage of other religious minorities remained small, totaling less than 4 percent of the population).

This is a recipe for polarization. As Christian nationalism becomes more militant, secularists and religious minorities will mobilize in opposition, ratcheting up the hostility. Thus we're likely to see a shrinking middle ground, with both camps increasingly viewing each other across a chasm of mutual incomprehension and contempt.

Christian nationalist symbolism and ideology will increasingly pervade public life. In addition to the war on evolution, there will be campaigns to teach Christian nationalist history in public schools. An elective course developed by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a right-wing evangelical group, is already being offered by more than 300 school districts in 36 states. The influence of Christian nationalism in public schools, colleges, courts, social services and doctors' offices will deform American life, rendering it ever more pinched, mean, and divided.

There's still a long way, though, between this damaged version of democracy and real theocracy. Tremendous crises would have to shred what's left of the American consensus before religious fascism becomes a possibility. That means that secularists and liberals shouldn't get hysterical, but they also shouldn't be complacent.

Amen

MY EXISTENCE - Personal Belief in my Immortality

I ran into the following quote while reading a long (94 pg) article in the Encyclopedia Britannica on Islam. It struck me as the best I've ever read that matches my personal belief in my immortality.

Islamic thought > Islamic philosophy > The Eastern philosophers > The teachings of Avicenna > The immortality of individual souls

Man can affirm the existence of his soul from direct consciousness of his self (what he means when he says “I”); and he can imagine this happening even in the absence of external objects and bodily organs. This proves, according to Avicenna, that the soul is indivisible, immaterial, and incorruptible substance, not imprinted in matter, but created with the body, which it uses as an instrument. Unlike other immaterial substances (the intelligences and souls of the spheres), it is not pre-eternal but is generated, or made to exist, at the same time as the individual body, which can receive it, is formed. The composition, shape, and disposition of its body and the soul's success or failure in managing and controlling it, the formation of moral habits, and the acquisition of knowledge all contribute to its individuality and difference from other souls. Though the body is not resurrected after its corruption, the soul survives and retains all the individual characteristics, perfections or imperfections, that it achieved in its earthly existence and in this sense is rewarded or punished for its past deeds.

My body/flesh is a temporary home for the real me, my soul. My body is made for this life, on this world, in this universe, and in the end will return to that from which it was made.

It is my soul that is created in the image of the Almighty and is immortal.

Evolution is the means the flesh is modified for existence in this world and does not deny that I am created by the Almighty.

CHURCH vs STATE - American Society & Islam

From the Encyclopedia Britannica on Islam

In AD 622, when the Prophet migrated to Medina, his preaching was soon accepted, and the community-state of Islam emerged. During this early period, Islam acquired its characteristic ethos as a religion uniting in itself both the spiritual and temporal aspects of life and seeking to regulate not only the individual's relationship to God (through his conscience) but human relationships in a social setting as well. Thus, there is not only an Islamic religious institution but also an Islamic law, state, and other institutions governing society. Not until the 20th century were the religious (private) and the secular (public) distinguished by some Muslim thinkers and separated formally in certain places such as Turkey.

This dual religious and social character of Islam, expressing itself in one way as a religious community commissioned by God to bring its own value system to the world through the jihad (“exertion,” commonly translated as “holy war” or “holy struggle”), explains the astonishing success of the early generations of Muslims.

The period of Islamic conquests and empire building marks the first phase of the expansion of Islam as a religion. The period of Islamic conquests and empire building marks the first phase of the expansion of Islam as a religion. Islam's essential egalitarianism within the community of the faithful and its official discrimination against the followers of other religions won rapid converts. Jews and Christians were assigned a special status as communities possessing scriptures and were called the “people of the Book” (ahl al-kitab) and, therefore, were allowed religious autonomy. They were, however, required to pay a per capita tax called jizyah, as opposed to pagans, who were required to either accept Islam or die.

The object of jihad is not the conversion of individuals to Islam but rather the gaining of political control over the collective affairs of societies to run them in accordance with the principles of Islam. Individual conversions occur as a by-product of this process when the power structure passes into the hands of the Muslim community.

Of course the lines I hi-lighted (bold) are wherein the problem with Islam lies when it comes to American government or society, our Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

What we have today in Muslim Fundamentalists and the Terrorists is their belief that we are essentially "pagans." Pagans who do not accept Islam and therefore must die. Add the general hatred of our support of Israel and we have an insoluble problem.

As long as they do not accept our view of secular government being separate from moral governance (religion) we will not see and end to Muslim Terrorist's Holy War.

POLITICS - Another Assault On Individual Religious Freedom

Religion and religious practice is an individual's right, not the right of the majority to impose on individuals.

Senator Byrd (D-W. Va.) is sponsoring another assault on individual religious rights by proposing a Constitutional Amendment.

Nothing in this Constitution, including any amendment to this Constitution, shall be construed to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer in public school, or to prohibit voluntary prayer or require prayer at a public school extracurricular activity.

This is based on the lie from the Religious-Right that prayer is banned from schools. Prayer is, and never has been, banned from schools.

What is banned is:

• Prayer led by a public school official
• Prayer led by anyone that does not easily give the right to of individuals not to participate

"Byrd proposes constitutional prayer amendment again" by Justin D. Anderson, Charleston Daily Mail

The senior senator's office said today that Byrd believes the nation's courts in their rulings pay too much attention to the clause in the First Amendment that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and disregards the second part about "prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

This ignores the right of individuals not to participate when prayer is led by students or non-officials in a setting like a classroom, mandatory assemblies, via a public announcing system, etc.

Where an individual cannot easily exercise his/her right not to participate as part of "free exercise thereof."

Byrd and the Religious-Right recognize only one "right," the right of a Christian majority to force individuals to participate in Christian practices indoctrination.

In schools today, all through America, students regularly hold private religious meetings, hold group private prayer, read the Bible (gosh... the ACLU protected this one on more than one occasion). The key word here is private.

POLITICS - Christian Nation Movement

"The Christian Nation Movement and the Alabama-ban" by Bennet Kelley, Huffington Post

Christian nation advocates should leave their red state cocoon and stand on the banks of the Providence River. For this is where Roger Williams, who had been banished from Massachusetts by the Puritans for his religious views, founded the colony of Rhode Island in 1636 based on his vision that there should be a "wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world,'" and that religious freedom must extend to all and not just Christians. As a result of Williams' vision, Rhode Island became known as "the safest refuge of conscience" and home to the New World's first Baptist Church and synagogue.

The seed sown by Williams ultimately blossomed into the First Amendment, which in the words of Thomas Jefferson prohibits Congress from enacting any "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." While it is true that the actual phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the First Amendment, the concept was invoked by the First Amendment's author, James Madison, who explained that "[t]he purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries." The Founders also addressed the Christian nation question in the Treaty of Tripoli, signed under President Washington and ratified under President Adams, which states that "the Government of the United States of Americais not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

The the spirit of fair disclosure, I'm a true Agnostic.

Our Founding-Fathers had an overriding concern, individual human rights. It's there in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the writings of our Founding-Fathers.

They had the experience from our "Motherland" of, not only kings, but of religious persecution. "The Inquisition" ring a bell? Want to be burned at the stake for being Protestant in a "Catholic Nation" or a Muslim in a "Christian Nation?"

That is why there is a wall of separation between any church and our state. Government, at any level, shall not be in the business of promoting and single religion or religious practice. Our government is to protect the right of individual religious practice.

Religion and religious practice is an individual right, not a right of the majority to impose on others. That means the Christian-Right "Christian Nation Movement" does not have the right to impose their Christian religion and practices on anyone; not you, not me, not the neighbor next door.

Our Founding-Fathers did not want to repeat the mistakes of our Homeland. The "Christian Nation Movement" is nothing short of a direct assault on our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

POLITICS - The March to U.S. Theocracy

Want to read something really, really scary? Something out of a Stephen King novel?

See "Religion becomes U.S. public policy" opinion By Marie Cocco, WASHINGTON POST WRITERS GROUP.

This is the chilling prospect laid out by Kevin Phillips, the one-time Republican operative and political historian who has made it his business of late to dissect the contemporary Republican Party’s firm hold on power. The most unnerving message of his latest book, “American Theocracy,” is that we who believe in facts or evidence, or that there must be some rational basis for public policy, are mistaken in our trust that objective truth or shared civic principal matters to those who gain power through the enthusiasm of religious zealots.

“Values are what society holds; what churches hold is theology and belief,” Phillips writes. Seen through this lens, the spectacle of Congress’ being called into session last Palm Sunday to pass legislation for Schiavo’s parents begins, oddly, to make sense.

......


When the fervently religious call the political shots, as they often do in the current Republican Party, religion becomes public policy.

Be forewarned!

More from another view.....

"The left will continue to accuse us of trying to 'Christianize America.' Because it can't debate us on the issues, it seeks to demonize us. But we are the inheritors of the faith tradition that is part of the fabric of America. We seek to return America to the Godly values espoused by leaders like Washington, Adams, Lincoln and Reagan. And we have just as much right to be actively involved in the political process as other citizens."

-- Pastor Rick Scarborough

"A specter is haunting America, and it is not socialism and certainly not communism. It is the specter of Americans kneeling in submission to a particular interpretation of a religion that has become an ideology, an all-encompassing way of life. It is the specter of our nation ruled by the extreme Christian right, who would make the United States a 'Christian nation' where their version of God's law supersedes all human law -- including the Constitution."

-- Rabbi James Rudin, "The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us" (Thunder's Mouth Press, 2006)

"War on Christians?" by Bill Berkowitz