Religion And Politics Again

Ravings from the Frothy Middle


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2008 November
2008 September
2008 March
2007 August
2007 July
2007 February
2007 January
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January

My Links
Little Miss Attila
Dr. Forbush Thinks
Slashdot
Games Slashdot
User Friendly
James Randi
Snopes
Home of the Underdogs
The Sun Online

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog


In which the middle-aged Peacenik mouths off about War Drones--and all the other things that make him cranky. Pnorny!

Mr Mahatma--who is a Mr in real life--lives in the valleys of Southern California with his wife, a herd of Dears, and an impressive collection of books. He is reachable at: littlemrmahatma@yahoo.com

All writings are copyrighted 2003-2008 and trademarked: Little Mr. Mahatma

Blogger Main Site


Still More Links:

Listed on BlogShares

Blogarama - The Blog Directory
Blogarama-Review My Site

IceRocket

LS Blogs

Blog Universe

Search For Blogs, Submit Blogs, The Ultimate Blog Directory

Blog Directory & Search engine

Site Meter


Religion And Politics Again
07.14.04 (10:03 am)   [edit]
In the opinion section of the 7/11 LA Times there was an article by Charlotte Allen about religion entering politics and how it was a good thing. She starts off by quoting the positions of Robert Reich (former Secretary of Labor) and Barry Lynn (Executive Director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State) that not only is religion in politics bad but could lead a major conflict between "those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority...between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma".


From this basis she attacks subtly. Mixing religion and politics is acceptable because:


"Most Americans don't mind - indeed many demand - that their president not only honor religious faith, an American hallmark, but function in some sense as a religious leader." This is an opinion expressed without any facts or statistics and therefore has no merit. What a President does and says in public is usually with an eye towards the polls. For a Republican President spouting religion in general is worth poll points but that doesn't mean we demand a President honor religious faith. Certainly we do not want a President who functions as a religious leader. We're fighting wars against those type of leaders. Our Founding Fathers understood the dangers of having leaders who served dual functions hence the eparation of Church and State.


"America owes its high level of religious intensity to the separation of church and state." Which is a damn good reason to keep and strengthen that separation, not weaken it. By keeping the wall intact we honor all religions and those who chose not to believe. By keeping the wall intact we keep the Government's focus on governing, on country issues, and not on religious matters. By keeping the separation intact we truly become "one nation, indivisible."


"Religion, by nature, is a public thing, because it acknowledges a reality that is outside the private realm of the inner heart. Individuals' faith and religious experiences are private matters but religion itself...is shared and communal. Those who would banish religion to the realm of the strictly private in effect contend that religion has no relevance to public life. This notion fatally trivializes religion by treating it as essentially meaningless." Religious dogma is public and does have relevance to public life, and does have meaning. In has no relevance in Government for by infiltrating Government religion forces the Government to give focus to a subset of the American people, namely those who believe. By spewing references to God you further eliminate those who do not believe in the Judeo-Christian dogmas. In short, religion entering politics can only be divisive.


"..religion recognizes there is inherent meaning, order, and purpose in the universe. It thus induces humility, a recognition that our puny ideas about how things are and ought to be may not be the final word. The horror of 20th century totalinarianism was the insistence of atheistic, militantly secularist intellectuals..." More opinion and poorly stated. Religious expression and belief is subject to interpretation and abuse. Sure, religion may hold that there's order and meaning in the universe but that rationale can be used to justify suicide bombers or as reason to open a charity. Religion may induce humility and it may induce a feeling of superiority, that one's religion is the true path to God and other religions are false. From that, we get religion fractionalizations and wars. The references to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are commonly made to show that Atheism is dangerous in Government. If religion is usually and commonly held as belief in a higher or supreme being, I would contend that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were forms of religions themselves int hat they passed themselves off as the ultimate powers. Sponsored Atheism would be a means to force the focus onto themselves.


More importantly the totalitarian argument implies that if you knock religion out of politics then you end up with a totalitarian regime, which is completely false. Knocking religion out of politics may also lead you to Democracy, example being the United States. By letting religion infiltrate politics we run the massively dangerous risk of having a President act as political and religious leader. The President could then demand that he be given the power to declare war without permission from Congress (*cough*). From there it's an easy short step to totalitarianism.


Is that what we want in America - a President with absolute power? Our Founding Fathers understood the dangers of that scenario, hence the "checks and balances" system of our Government. We must not let our system of Government be undermined by religious influences. It's bad enough that it's corrupted Corporations. We, the American People, must retake our Government, enforce the separation between Church and State, vote loudly, and re-take our Freedoms and Liberties. If we don't, the Government surely won't.

 


posted by: DrForbush (reply)
post date: 07.14.04 (10:31 am)

Obviously, someone who hasn’t read enough history is advocating mixing religion and politics. How many people have died fighting over some religious doctrine that most of us would find ridiculous today?

Your Name:


Your Comment:


More Links:

POLITICS:
Arianna
FactCheck.ORG not .COM
SpinSanity
Black Box Voting
OpenSecrets
Open The Government
AntiWar
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Church of Critical Thinking
The New Enlightenment
Mother Jones
Reuters
Pravda

RELIGION:
Secular Web - Atheism
Skeptic's Annotated Bible and annotated Koran.
The Happy Heretic
Fallacies
The Skeptic's Dictionary
God of the Month
Religion Selector