Mock, Paper, Scissors

(This post comes to us from our great friend and Scissorhead Jimmy Dean’s Fucked-up Cousin Clyde. JD’s etc. has been a long time supporter of the Blog Against Theocracy and always contributes a thought-provoking and creative post. He did it again for us in 2009! Rgds, T.G.)

Who rules in religion?

The God or Gods do.

God is The ruler. And the people are subservient to God’s laws.

Most religions follow this template. Granted, spiritualism has as many manifestations as possibly there are devotees, so there is not only one pattern which describes all, but… most organized religions follow this basic one of God the Ruling Force Of The Universe, God The Superior, Man Inferior (this is not a sexual position, unless you count the Missionary One, then . . . maybe, but probably only in the context of a patriarchy), God The All Powerful, etc.

God, as we understand the philosophical entity, may exist in either a state of formlessness—-an omnipresent Spirit, at once the eternal background matrix for all arising manifestations in the material world and equally distinct from those manifestations much as the sky is only a canvas (green screen, modern parlance) for the movie of the clouds, or as the existent manifestations themselves —-inseparably creation itself, in every form imaginable.

God as the ruler is either then a remote lawgiver, one beautifully likened in 16th Century-think to the clockmaker who has built the clock and who winds it but who is also busy with other projects somewhere else in the shop, or the craftsman and the clock and the shop and the winding all in a package.

There is a wee problem here.

IF God is remotely a creator, then the physical laws are ones pertinent to the creation. Indeed, this has been the explorational busy work of the physicists and chemists and mathematicians as long as we know such thinkers to have existed. The discovery of these laws and the refinement of the search to the least minutiae goes on at this moment. These boundary-defining statutes establish what can and cannot occur. Since they apply to the physical material realm they lend themselves to testing and proofs. Bit by bit, these laws are being revealed to man.

But IF God is the creation itself, everything changes. It is no longer simply a discovery of the laws by which creation manifests, but the creation itself revealing itself to itself, God singing “Getting To Know Me.”

The wee problem is this:

Laws created by politicians are not laws governing the material workings of the cosmos. (I will acknowledge that the State policeman with the radar gun who is waving at me as I sail past him at 75 in a 55 zone does have a beatific appearance . . . but maybe it is only oxygen deprivation since I stopped breathing when I saw him too late).

They are not laws governing physics, but people’s actions. And they are not God’s laws, but laws of people, issued by people, for people. God doesn’t make these laws anymore than people make the laws of electromagnetism.

But this is not clear to everyone.

Let me say it again: people make the laws governing people, and God makes the laws governing the physical universe.

Let me flip this one more time so it is painfully clear how wrong it is when Believers become (rulers) legislators and confuse who and what they are:

• GOD makes the laws governing people,
  and PEOPLE make the laws governing the physical universe.
• GOD says who can vote,
  and PEOPLE say what gravity ought to be.
• GOD says what tariffs there should be on foreign steel,
  and PEOPLE say what the binding force between water molecules should be.
• GOD says who can marry,
  and PEOPLE say what ultraviolet radiation should be.
• GOD says how much the states can tax the use of tobacco,
  and PEOPLE say how galaxies rotate about an axis.
• GOD says what boundaries exist between adjoining nations,
  and People allow a plant to grow from a seed.
• GOD says what the speed limit in rural Ohio should be,
  and PEOPLE say how fast or how slow universe expansion should be.

When God and people become used interchangeably, it’s a theocracy, or rule by GOD/PEOPLE, and the limits separating religion and government no longer exist.

No longer is it clear what laws are laws affecting the physical workings of the universe, and what laws are laws made by people affecting other people.

No longer clear is it what belief is, and what knowledge is.

The boundaries between science and dogma become hazy and uncertain.

No one knows what’s real, and what isn’t. And the rulers can justify anything they do, with the claim they have the divine right.

Rulers love this.

Tengrain — and if you think I was going to put my usual signature somewhere in those four quadrants, you’re crazier than I am!

In my line of work, we get these sorts of “magic quadrant” analysis of where our products are compared to the competition. Some people find them useful.

UPDATE: According to Theocracy Watch, the theocratic governments of the world are Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vatican City.

I know, I know, I know… but imagine if the news shows filled up a few minutes here and there with sightings of Mohammed, or Buddah. Why is it always Jesus’ image on the stain in the news?

You see, it’s not just the three branches of government we need to be vigilant about, the fourth estate is already well on the way to being a theocratic media.

Via email, I’ve been asked to explain myself, how I could “perverse” such an iconic image as the Rosenthal photograph of the planting of the flag on Iwo Jima. The writer suggest a few things I could do with the flag pole, but I’ll save that for another time.

When Blue Gal and I were plotting and planning this year’s blog swarm, she asked me to do something with the Rainbow Flag. We agreed that this year, the theocrats were targeting gays, what with fights all over the country on same sex marriage, and gay civil rights in general. One of us said it was like a war on gays.

And then the image dawned on me. You see, the Marines who fought so bravely in the South Pacific in World War II (Hi Dad!) fought for all of us, not just some of us. Their heroism is not limited to just one group of Americans over another group. They did not fight and die to preserve and protect the US Constitution only to have theocrats come in and destroy it in the name of their god.

So here’s the way I see things: just as the Marines fought for all of us, we have to fight to preserve and protect our Constitution from the theocrats who would replace it with a Bible, and we have to fight for all of our citizens to be equal. Religion has no place in our governance.

Regards,

Tengrain

(Cross-posted for my favorite religious lady and friend, FranIAm, who proves to me daily that you can be a Christian and cool. Rgds, T.G)

(Despite my calls for action for Blog Against Theocracy weekend (Also available at MockPaperScissors) I seem to have run out of time without writing a post. To that end I am submitting and posting this post from my blog, from early March. The post was about the film Constantine’s Sword and is interwoven with a case of campus proselytizing of the worst sort a the Air Force Academy. I was inspired to do this by the fine posting I just read at Happy Jihad’s House of Pancakes written by the inimitable Bing McGhandi.

For those who read this at Ten’s or at BG’s BAT site and do not know me… I am a very religious person who is deeply committed to keeping church and state separate. As a person of deep faith I do not want to tell you what to do or how to believe, nor do I want to be forced into anyone else’s ways of being. Peaceful coexistence is my goal.
————————————————————————————————————

I have not been utilizing my Netflix subscription very much lately that I recently sent a movie back after meaning to write about for weeks and then not doing so! I am so out of touch with my queue that I did not know what would arrive next.

As I am studying church history this semester and have been obsessed with Constantine (not in a good way), I hit the Netflix/Grad school jackpot when Constantine’s Sword arrived a few days later.

Currently I am immersed in church history as that is what I am studying this semester. And I am really struggling with how and why Christianity and government/power got intertwined by Constantine’s declaration that Christianity would be the religion of the Empire. “In hoc signo vinces” (“in this sign you shall conquer,”) or the IHS you often see above Jesus’ head on crucifixes.

And this film – Constantine’s Sword, uses that point in history to explore parallels between church, state and military that exist to this day.

I really liked the film; it was not the greatest, but it was interesting. It did a good job of pulling together the story more quickly, but be warned it is without all the historical detail and data the book offers. If you don’t know the history, it might not be as clear.

As a former Catholic priest, Carroll does have a bit of an axe to grind. However, make no mistake – Carroll has clearly called out the truth about anti-Semitism and the Roman Catholic Church, which needs to be called out and called out loudly and clearly.

Especially lately.

(Not to go too far afield, but many of you have heard me say this on the phone, I do not think that I have said it here… It is NO excuse for any of the awful things of late – especially the SSPX situation, but I do not believe that Pope Benedict is a Nazi or a virulent anti-semite. He is many things, but not that, as I see it. Want to talk with me (or fight with me) about that? To discuss it, email me please. I would be curious about your viewpoint and willing to share mine, but I will not likely blog about it. That said, B16′s words and actions inspire those who do reject the Jews.)

Back to the film… It does an excellent job of exploring not only the anti-semitism fueled by the RC Church, but it truly brings forth and weaves the relationship between ultra-right conservative Christianity, the US government and also the military. The real focus for this is the Air Force family of Mikey Weinstein and how Weinstein pushed back hard against the proselytizing at the US Air Force Academy.

You are likely aware that Colorado Springs is the home of this place and this place and this place. (i feel dirty just googling and publishing those links. ick… On a former business travel related note, I used to go to Colo Springs all the time. I always found the place physically beautiful, but slightly creepy… I used to say it was Apt Pupil meets Red Dawn. *shudder*)

Anyway, the movie goes back and forth between the relationship between Constantine’s toxic mix of war, power and faith and the current similarities. Now this film was released in 2007, that sick era of Bush-shit.

Especially creepy were scenes where Carroll interviews Ted Haggard, like this one. (it is only 21 creepy seconds long…)

(Is that smile insincere and soul-chilling or what???)

This movie covers a lot of historical ground as it encapsulates the history of the church and the toxic mix of church and state that began with Constantine in 312 and mentioned above. Prior to this, the religion of the empire was pagan. The question will always remain – did Constantine really convert or was this his evil exercise of unifying power? I always tend towards the latter on this.

So you go from what was once the counter-cultural group of outsiders, that is those who followed Christ, to the forced religion of the empire. Add to that the struggles already extant in the growing Christian faith, many of whom never thought of themselves as anything other than messianic Jews. There were already forces at work in the various communities of that time that were sowing seeds of anti-Semitism.

Bring that into the context of the war against Iraq (think GWB and the use of the word “crusade”) and the power of the religious right in this country during his presidency.

Carroll’s own history matters here too… His parents were of Irish descent and working class at that. Yet his father became a General and played a major role in government. Carroll lived a privileged life and became a Catholic priest in the Vatican II era. He embraced peace and social justice only to discover how conflicted his work was.

Carroll was vehemently anti-war and an activist priest during the Vietnam era… and his father worked at the Pentagon.

Church, state and war are always an intoxicating mix for those who love power and domination. This is why they should never go together, but always do.

This movie is worth a watch just to see how ugly it can all get. I realize that for a 90 minute movie, there is so much to write about and I have barely captured any of it.

Let it suffice to say that Carroll travels to Colorado Springs and to Rome; he journeys to Krakow and Auschwitz as well. He does a good job of presenting the sometimes complicated role of the Catholic Church and some very dark chapters of history with clarity. His segments on the Jewish community of Rome were especially excellent.

I recommend this film if you have an interest in this history… and in how dangerous it is for the forces of the military, the government and religion to mix.

(Our good friend and Scissorhead, Travelling Man, submitted this post by email – we are very glad and proud to present it here at Mock, Paper, Scissors. Rgds, T.G.)

With the election of Barack Obama, the influence of the Religious Right may have diminished, but it has not disappeared.

Those of us who are committed to retaining the separation of Church and State must continue to be vigilant against the encroachment on our freedoms by those who would subvert the Constitution and replace it with a system of laws founded on various religious texts. Just recently, a new advertisement for the “defense of marriage” advises us that there is a “gathering storm”. At the inauguration of President Obama, The Christian Defense Coalition and others anointed the doorposts through which the then President Elect would pass on his way to being sworn in to office. The Obama administration continues to fund Faith Based Initiatives begun in the Bush administration.

None of these examples should be construed as being somehow opposed to Christianity. There are instances of the encroachment by ultra-conservative members of other faiths to restrict freedom ranging from Muslim taxi drivers refusing to carry passengers carrying alcohol, to a Jewish group that supported California’s Proposition 8 to restrict the rights of homosexuals to marry.

What none of these groups can understand, or will understand, (which is an entirely different matter), is that while they have every right to adopt restrictions on their behavior according to their religious beliefs, they do not have the right to force those restrictions on others. That is the basis of this blogswarm. These groups refuse to acknowledge that others are free to live their lives as they see fit as long as that lifestyle does not impinge on the rights of others. Those of us who wholeheartedly support the separation of Church and State do not wish to stop others from living according to the dictates of their conscience. We merely wish to be accorded that same right without them shoving their religious agenda down our throats.

Since the change in administrations this year, conservative religious groups do not have the same access to the corridors of power that they once did. This doesn’t mean that the struggle to maintain our freedom is over. Far from it. Now, these groups have adopted the language of their opponents and accuse others of being intolerant. Somehow, not giving them special permission to dictate what we drink, who we love, and how we worship or do not worship is being “intolerant”. They adopt the language of the victim while victimizing others. This is the new paradigm and we should develop effective means of countering that specious argument.

First and foremost, we need to remind them that none of the ideas we advocate deny them the right to live as they choose. We deny them the right to dictate how others should live and that is a true defense of freedom. Perhaps we should also remind them that if their Deity is as omnipotent as they claim, said Deity can effect the changes they seek with no help from them whatsoever.

I would like to close with a quotation from Robert Ingersoll from 1879:

“Churches are becoming political organizations….
It probably will not be long until the churches will divide as sharply upon political, as upon theological questions; and when that day comes, if there are not liberals enough to hold the balance of power, this Government will be destroyed. The liberty of man is not safe in the hands of any church. Wherever the Bible and sword are in partnership, man is a slave.
All laws for the purpose of making man worship God, are born of the same spirit that kindled the fires of the auto da fe, and lovingly built the dungeons of the Inquisition. All laws defining and punishing blasphemy — making it a crime to give your honest ideas about the Bible, or to laugh at the ignorance of the ancient Jews, or to enjoy yourself on the Sabbath, or to give your opinion of Jehovah, were passed by impudent bigots, and should be at once repealed by honest men. An infinite God ought to be able to protect himself, without going in partnership with State Legislatures. Certainly he ought not so to act that laws become necessary to keep him from being laughed at. No one thinks of protecting Shakespeare from ridicule, by the threat of fine and imprisonment. It strikes me that God might write a book that would not necessarily excite the laughter of his children. In fact, I think it would be safe to say that a real God could produce a work that would excite the admiration of mankind. Surely politicians could be better employed than in passing laws to protect the literary reputation of the Jewish God.”

Those are the stakes. The Radical Religious Right isn’t going away.

But then, neither are we.

Traveling Man

…is like arguing with teh crazy.

These are actors, by the way, they are reciting actual words that the fundies have said. I have to admire them for not breaking character as they say some of these things.

…can be found at Wee Mousie’s most excellent Cinema Burlesque. I laughed, I cried, it is the feel-good Friday post of, well, Good Friday.

To everything
There is a season
And a time for every purpose, under heaven

No more April Fools mischief for us here at Mock, Paper, Scissors. The time has come for us to put away our childish things, to become serious, and to address the theocratic issues of the day, carefully, thoughtfully, and straight forwardly. We cannot forever sit back and mock the short-fingered vulgarians. We must do more than merely spitball the pontificating poltroons. Enough jokes, enough tomfoolery. It’s high time we told the world not just what repels and astounds us, but what we are for.

I’m thinking.

Alright, here’s one: We are for condoms.

arlier this year, the Pope while visiting Africa (which looks to be a great opportunity for expanding his franchise), suggested that access to condoms leads to the spread of HIV disease and AIDS. The pope told reporters, “You can’t resolve it [the spread of HIV and AIDS, presumably] with the distribution of condoms.” He then added, “On the contrary, it increases the problem.”

Actually, the lack of condoms increases many problems, besides HIV and AIDS (which is a tragedy of epic proportions as it is) such as unwanted children.

Turn, turn, turn…

hildren seem to be a lot in the news lately, and MPS is firmly of the belief that children should be seen and not heard from until they are old enough to make a decent martini. However, we do believe that children should be wanted.

Perhaps solving the glut of unwanted children is at our fingertips: allowing gay couples to adopt. Christian groups however say that gay people are “now pursuing symbolic gains and holding up children as trophies for their own agenda.” Tell that to Frank Gill, a plaintiff in a pending lawsuit aimed at repealing the Florida adoption ban. Gill said that he and his partner have been foster parents for 10 children but when a South Florida circuit judge granted their request to adopt two boys, the state immediately appealed under the law forbidding adoption by gays.

According to Minnesota’s member of Congress, Michelle Bachmann, the gay community is targeting children and that “our children are the prize for this community.”

We at MPS are all for prizes, and we think that Michelle Bachmann and the theocrats of the Christian right win the prize for ignorance and bigotry.

Turn, turn, turn…

ut as long as we are discussing condoms as contributing to a problem (as the Pope says), we logically arrive at abstinence as sex education.

The narrative that we get from the Christian Right is that sex is the dirtiest, nastiest and most evil thing that you can do (Ed: only if you do it right — T.G.), and that is why you must only do it with someone you love.

Works well, doesn’t it?

Turn, turn, turn…

n sex education, we did learn about the sperm and the egg, and how babies are made (though it took a few years before we learned about Tab A and Slot B). We saw nifty black and white movies showing the moment of conception, and oddly there was no one from the GOP-Christian Right with a voter registration card.

The theocrats across the country are again in the throes of protecting the fetus and frying the felons. And interestingly enough, the right to medical care has become an issue amongst the Rapture set:

Carl and Raylene Worthington were indicted for manslaughter and criminal mistreatment, after their 18 month old daughter died of what officials are calling medical neglect. They are members of the Followers of Christ Church, whose members have a history of treating gravely ill children solely via prayer, instead of with medical attention. The state medical examiner’s office has said that she could have been treated with antibiotics. Just a few weeks later, a 16 year old cousin in the same community died from a urinary track blockage.

As we’ve said before, the theocrats motto is The Right to Life Ends at Birth

Turn, turn, turn…

ere’s another thing we are for: intelligence, but not intelligent design. The Texas Board of Education earlier this year proposed a new science curriculum that is designed to challenge the guiding principle of evolution. The proposed curriculum would prompt teachers to raise doubts that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry.

Texas school board chairman Don McLeroy wants the texts to make the case that individual cells are far too complex to have evolved by chance mutation and natural selection, an argument popular with those who believe an intelligent designer created the universe.

The most incredible thing I believe is the Christmas story. That little baby born in the manger was the god that created the universe.

– Don McLeroy, Texas school board chairman

Please ignore the logic and continuity issues with being born and then creating everything. As the Pope says, it increases the problem.

Scissorheads –

Welcome to the third year of the Blog Against Theocracy.

As is our tradition at Mock, Paper, Scissors, we begin with an invocation from our late and much loved Xristi M, who passed away in December of 2006. This is a poem she left in a comment for us. Xristi used her incredible intelligence as a sword and shield, but she let her Christian faith guide her. She would have loved the Blog Against Theocracy.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Dedicated to the Absolutely Sure of Absolutely Everything
From Someone Who Isn’t
(c) XristiM 1998-2006

Into their Lazarus mouths they pop
God like round peppermint lozenges,
and with their resurrected teeth
grind Him small,
roll the bits with their tongues,
flooding them with saliva and
the exhalations of digestion.
Then they amble forth
to perform the work for which
they have anointed themselves
and each other,
breathing the judgment of an angry God strongly
into the nostrils of others.

We can hear them at a distance,
from close enough can detect the stench
of self-righteousness.
And a wary eye can detect them in our midst,
with coats that show glossy fronts,
but on their backs,
hidden from their view
and from ours
unless we trouble ourselves to look,
reveal scraps and patches
like bandages over festering sores.

We may protest, draw back in distaste,
alarmed to have God thrust upon us
smelling so pungently of mint
and the charnel house,
but they are relentless in pursuit
of fleeing souls.
They paralyze us with their certainty
that God lives in their mouths.

For myself, I think the God has filed
His change of address:
He resides
not in the mouth, but in the heart.

Scissorheads -

The 2008 Blog Against Theocracy may be over, but our work is just begun. We must be ever vigilant to keep fighting for our rights. Commander Other gave us a stirring call to action in his last post, and I know he is right. It is not enough for us to talk to each other, to, well, preach to the choir, as it were.

I intend to train my member of Congress, and like training a dog I will give the reward as well as the scold.

I’ve said it before: the readers and commentors on Mock, Paper, Scissors are the best and the brightest. To have such smart and insightful, and yes, passionate posts over the weekend is a real honor. You’ve done yourselves proud, and I am strutting like a peacock.

Thank you for all you do.

Regards,

Tengrain

Folks -

I’ve said it countless times: I’m jealous of those who have a faith. It must really be comforting and useful to believe in something, while I don’t have faith that the next Kleenex will actually pop up.

TomCat in his post, Theocracy: Errors And Jesus’ View, says something that rings true to me:

In ancient times the most common manner of teaching was through story telling. The stories needed not be true. What was important was that the story illustrate a truth.

This could be the whole operandis of Mock, Paper, Scissors, not to go biblical on you. Someone commented recently that they get their news from MPS, and while flattering, it was frightening.

This morning I ran into this quote as I was finishing reading My Year of Meats by Ruth Ozeki (a fantastic novel that might make you a vegan):

Maybe sometimes you have to make things up, to tell truths that alter outcomes. Without the power of the imagination we lack the power to alter outcomes, so if we can’t imagine better outcomes in a better world, we cannot act to achieve these. You can’t make something you can’t imagine first.

Now, as usual, to muddy the waters a bit more and bring in some physics as I am wont to do, the Schrödinger’s cat paradox illustrates a point: the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the box is opened. The act of observation influences the outcome.

So the cat is both alive and dead, the Kleenex is both popped up and not popped, and I have faith and no faith. This might seem like more trouble than it’s worth to arrive at the central point:

Respect others as you would like to be respected yourself, and that includes matters of faith. Have the imagination of the Founding Fathers to see the strength in keeping church and state separate. Fight for it, fight for what you believe. Imagine the better outcome, the better world.

(As always, please visit First Freedom First for more thoughts on this important issue. Sign the petition while you are there, too.)

Mauigirl was having trouble logging in and posting to MPS, so she asked me to post this for her.

This is MauiGirl’s contribution to the Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm. Bold type are quotations, anything in italics is emphasis Mauigirl has added to the quotes. Please check out Mauigirls Meanderings for the original.

It’s been seven years since President Bush announced his “faith-based initiative” to allow public money to fund nonprofit organizations sponsored by religious groups.

The purpose of the initiative was to establish “a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives that will have lead responsibility to:

• “Establish policies, priorities, and objectives to enlist, equip, enable, empower, and expand the work of faith-based and other community organizations to the extent permitted by law.
• Ensure that policy decisions and programs are consistent with the President’s stated goals with respect to faith-based and other community initiatives.
• Integrate the agenda affecting faith-based and other community organizations across the Federal Government.
• Coordinate public education to mobilize public support for faith-based and community nonprofit initiatives.
• Eliminate unnecessary legislative, regulatory, and other bureaucratic barriers that impede effective faith-based and other community efforts to solve social problems.
• Ensure that the efforts of faith-based and other community organizations meet high standards of excellence and accountability.”

In addition, the executive order “Establishes a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within each of the Departments of Justice, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development, to:

• Coordinate efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social services.
• Incorporate faith-based and other community organizations in department programs and initiatives to the greatest extent possible.
• Increase the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in Federal as well as State and local initiatives.”

Although money would now be funneled from the government to groups whose main purpose is a religious one, there supposedly would be “safeguards” put in place to ensure church and state remained separate:

• Secular helping agencies must be available in the same areas as faith-based helping agencies, so that people who need help do not have to accept the religious aspect in order to get the help.
• No government funds can be used for proselytizing or other inherently religious activities.
• Government should be neutral, providing funds based on the program results and not on the specific program structure (religious vs. nonreligious).
• Funding for faith-based and secular helping agencies is provided from the same source. There is no “set-aside” strictly for religious organizations.”

Now, seven years later, a document called “The Quiet Revolution: The President’s Faith-Based and Community Initiative: A Seven-Year Progress Report Letter From President Bush” sums up the progress against his mission:

The first Presidential initiative launched by the Bush Administration, the FBCI has grown each year and adapted to emerging challenges and expanded its influence at home and abroad. The framework of this activity includes:

Five Executive Orders expanding the FBCI reach across the Federal Government;

Sixteen agency-level rule changes and a myriad of smaller scale policy reforms to level the playing field for faith-based and community organizations;

More than a dozen presidential initiatives aimed at some of society’s most stubborn social problems;

Provision of in-person training to build capacity for more than 100,000 social entrepreneurs;

Measurement of the FBCI’s progress, and ongoing improvement of program components as necessary;

Replication at the State- and local-government level.

The FBCI initiated a profound cultural change resulting in wider acceptance of faith-based organizations in community problem-solving, as well as a heightened understanding of results-driven collaborations between government and the nonprofit sector. As this report shows, the FBCI has been a quiet revolution in how government engages community partners to address human need and how public and private interests combine for the common good.”

The question is, how much of this “profound cultural change” has led us down the slippery slope toward theocracy? This initiative has been largely flying under the radar, and many Americans may not be aware of the profound changes it has wrought.

According to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, “The law governing the separation of church and state has been shaped by dozens of U.S. Supreme Court decisions and thousands of decisions by lower federal courts and state courts.”

Nevertheless, there are watchdog groups that are on top of this and are trying to roll back these changes. There have been a number of lawsuits attempting to thwart some of the provisions of the Faith-Based Initiative.The link above provides summaries of a number of recent court decisions.

One recent success story was a case entitled Americans United v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, when in 2006, Americans United won a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Iowa Corrections Department’s support for Charles Colson’s InnerChange, a prison program that trains inmates in evangelical Christianity.

Another group that has spearheaded a number of successful lawsuits defending the separation of church and state is the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Throughout the Bush administration’s tenure, there has been opposition to the Faith Based Initiative programs.

According to the Boston Globe, in 2006 two leading Democrats on the House International Relations Committee said they want to investigate President Bush’s faith-based initiative…

“…to determine whether taxpayer funds are being used to reward Bush’s Christian conservative supporters and whether the faith-based groups are using the funds to help gain converts.

…Bush was unable to win congressional approval for the faith-based program even with Republicans in control of Congress, so he used executive orders to implement the program.”

Concern has been raised in many quarters about these faith-based initiatives; Former President Jimmy Carter was very outspoken in his criticism of the program, according to an article published by The Associated Press last May:

“Carter offered his harshest assessment for the White House’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious charities receive $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005 alone.

‘The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion. Those things in my opinion are quite disturbing,’ Carter said. ‘As a traditional Baptist, I’ve always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one.’ “

The various ways this initiative violates the separation of church and state are detailed in the “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” website. As the site explains…

“Charitable choice became part of the welfare law in 1996, but the federal government was hesitant to implement the policy due to constitutional concerns. Moreover, only a handful of states have altered their programs to allow for government funding of religious ministries.

Now, however, the Bush administration is working to apply charitable choice to nearly every aspect of government funding.”

The site includes a comprehensive list of the reasons this initiative is bad for the country:

• By using government funds to support religious organizations, the initiative in effect forces taxpayers to subsidize religion they may not believe in.
• Charitable choice raises the specter of federally funded employment discrimination. Under Bush’s proposal, churches would be legally permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring, despite receiving a massive infusion of public dollars.
• Religious institutions would receive taxpayer support while seeking to convert people seeking assistance. Disadvantaged people would be vulnerable to coertion while receiving needed services and benefits.
• Religious institutions themselves do not necessarily benefit from this initiative, and could face unwelcome interference by the government. The government always regulates what it finances…Once churches, temples, mosques and synagogues are being financed by public funds, some of their own freedom to run their organizations as they see fit could be at risk.
• Another risk to the religious organizations involved could be a diminution of voluntary contributions from members and other contributors, due to the perception that the government would now be taking care of these needs.
• The faith-based initiative pits religious groups against each other in competition for public funds.
• Some faith traditions could be favored over others when it comes to doling out money from the public treasury.

Interestingly, according to “Americans United,” “opposition to faith-based public funding spans the ideological spectrum. Americans have raised complaints about these proposals regardless of their party affiliation, religious belief or political ideology. In fact, in recent years, a large number of religious and public policy groups have joined together in coalition to oppose charitable choice plans.

…Ultimately, public funding of faith-based institutions is one of those rare proposals that harms virtually everyone affected by it. The initiative promotes publicly funded employment discrimination, it threatens the religious liberties of beneficiaries, it jeopardizes the freedom of our faith communities and it undermines the rights of all taxpayers.”

Please be sure to check out the other information on the websites linked above, as well as First Freedom First and all of the other posts on the Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm.

ap photo – al-behman

While we americans proceed to celebrate the death of our savior by buying sheets at a markdown at Macy’s, and searching for colorful hard-boiled eggs and chocolate candies that a mystical rabbit has left for us, let’s today examine the theory of evolution.

To most of us, a theory is not a fact. Like water seeking its own level, confidence runs downhill: from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess; wild-assed guesses and outright lies are reserved for Congress, but I digress. And this slight rhetorical trick gives the theocrats their best weapon:

Evolution is only a theory…If evolution is not a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?

Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about,” he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: “Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.

• Facts are data.
• Theories explain and interpret facts.

Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s theory last century, but apples continued to fall.

And we humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s theory or by some other theory, yet to be discovered. And we continue to evolve. Well, most of us, anyway…

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though fundies often do. In science a fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be silly to withhold provisional agreement.

I suppose that Newton’s apples might someday start to fly up to the sky, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Nor does Creationism or its more popular sister, Intelligent Design merit equal time in biology classrooms with the theory of natural selection.



Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because they have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.

(As always, please visit First Freedom First for more thoughts on this important issue. Sign the petition while you are there, too.)

Folks, this is a reprise from last year, but honestly, it is a favorite post — The Management

The Democratic leadership of the House Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Service, and Education (LHHS) Sub-Committee set science and commonsense aside by increasing the funding for discredited abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Despite a congressionally mandated report that found these programs do not work to help teens delay sexual initiation, House leadership allocated $141 million (an increase of $27.8 million) to continue feeding America’s young people misinformation.

When all is said and done, the religious influence on sex education in public schools, may be the most dangerous of all, and it is good to know that the Democrats are falling right in line with Chimpy McStagger and the Mouthbreathers on this issue. Don’t want to chase away those fundie votes.

So the Democrats have upped the price of stupidity.

Theocracy depends on many inputs, but mostly on stupidity and fear. Fear of sex is fundamental to the the fundamentalists of all stripes and hues, from the Taliban to the Christian Coalition, sex sells. And now with the Democratic Party joining the abstinence chorus, who can blame America’s youth for not knowing where babies come from?

The other day I was having lunch with a colleague fresh from school, who was enjoying a juicy and ripe apricot. She said it was so good that she was saving the pit so she could grow a tree to have more apricots just like it, someday. Has sex education become so esoteric that she should really be shocked when I told her this would not work? One of the most comforting thoughts in all of science is that no one is exactly like their parents, and this includes apricots.

The Urge to Merge

While it seems axiomatic to many that if there is no sex, there are no unplanned pregnancies, and there is no transmission of disease, it still seems pretty axiomatic to me that plenty of kids are still going to have hormones, and the urge to merge is biological not intellectual. My Sex Ed class was very scientific with lots of diagrams of eggs and sperms, but with no mention of how the twain shall meet. We figured it out eventually. Tab A. Slot B. But I digress.

Since 1982, Congress has allocated over $1.5 billion for abstinence-only programs that censor information about birth control and the health benefits of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases. A 10-year study conducted by Mathematica, Inc. found that kids in the abstinence-only program group were no more likely than control group to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age. Woo-hoo!

Although teen pregnancy rates are decreasing, the United States still has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world with between 750,000 and 850,000 teen pregnancies a year. Each year, teens in the United States contract an estimated 9.1 million sexually transmitted infections and approximately 50 young people a day, an average of two young people every hour of every day, are infected with HIV.

Just the Facts, Ma’am

While the Christians encourage talk about how Cain brutally bludgeoned Abel, it is verboten to allude to how either brother was conceived, much less the necessarily incestuous liaisons that led to the rib-less Adam having grandchildren. Quite simply, you may talk about procreation by the de-boning of a man, but not by the boning of a woman.

Here are some of the things that kids have been taught since Chimpy started imposing his sex-phobic views:

• abortion can lead to sterility and suicide
• that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus
• touching a person’s genitals can result in pregnancy
• A 43-day-old fetus is a “thinking person”
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears
• condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

Be sure to go to First Freedom First and sign the petition.

Wednesday at lunch, a colleague mentioned that one of the students attending her child’s school was asked to remove her head scarf. I asked her if anyone at the school was asked not to wear a cross, and she blanched when she realized that these things are not dissimilar.

Recently, I read a news article (and I wish I bookmarked it) about legislation to protect gays against workplace discrimination. One of the big brand-name fundamentalists neatly turned the table and said something like, “Gays are not being discriminated against in the workplace, but religion is. We need laws to protect us.” It was a neat trick; he was able to quickly reverse the role and become the victim of the gay employees.

So what do these two stories have in common (besides the First Amendment, that is)?

When the state promotes one religion over another, it is violating the Establishment Clause. By telling the school girl that she cannot wear her scarf, but the child next to her can wear a crucifix, the state is approving one religion over another, and thus helping a religion; you can probably make the claim that as a public school, tax money is thus involved, too.

In the business scenario, the gay employees are not a religion-based group. If you establish rules protecting them, you are not establishing a religious baseline. However, if someone puts rules in place that favors a religious organization (as the big brand-name Fundie wanted), once again the Establishment clause is violated.

So what, I hear you ask, is the other code mentioned in the title of this post?

Whenever religious organizations start saying they are being discriminated against, think through it. What is really being said — in code — “you are taking away our ability to discriminate against others.”

I believe it is relatively clear that our European allies, especially Great Britain, live in more secular societies than we do here in America. Especially where Great Britain is concerned, there’s a significant amount of irony involved in such progressivism: our founding families fled such places because of religious oppression at great personal risk, and a couple of hundred years later elements of our own government desire a steadfast adherence to religious edicts, and already have systems in place by which non-Christian business and organizations are disallowed participation in certain government-sanctioned areas of business. It’s ironic, and of course from my perspective, it’s considerably depressing. I believe the story of the American Revolution—pretty much all the stories of the American Revolution, in fact—is a grand tale of personal commitment, courage in the face of imminent threat, and indeed, the fundamental precepts of honor, perseverance, and integrity.

Of those, it is integrity which bothers me in this seemingly continual struggle for religious domination of our government. For the desire for religious domination is promoted as Americanism when it is, in fact, one of the most extreme of un-American acts that can be perpetrated on the populace outside of mass murder. The lack of self-integrity that it constitutes is also troubling for me, because the individuals who promote the redefinition of America as a “Christian Nation” are those who set themselves as examples of good behavior to the rest of us. Setting aside the fact that dogmatic belief in biblical stories is a nefarious form of delusion (and self-delusion, to boot), they cherry-pick their own religious doctrine in the attempt to make their desires real.

I once considered running for a local political office. After two days of discussions with local Party officials, I was finally contacted by the State Democratic Party and told in no uncertain terms that they would not support me as long as I refused to attend church. In other words, unless I was willing to violate my sense of self-integrity, I wasn’t a solid enough candidate in their minds to support. I lacked the personal funds (and the time, to be honest), to aggressively compete against the individual who sponsored the anti-abortion legislation that was so controversial on the national circuit (South Dakota’s Proposition 6), and even though the state party abhorred both the policy and the man, they simply weren’t willing to fight him from the opposite religious extreme. And as an already-established dynamic member of my community, heaven forbid that I would have brought some logic, critical thinking, and personal insight to the matter (the personal insight being that I was adopted and had a child placed for adoption and was in contact with my daughter from a previous relationship, whom i didn’t get to raise).

While I found this personally offensive, the concept wasn’t hard to understand. Even a cursory view of politics today shows how intrinsically it is tied to religion. Political candidates take great pride, it seems, in opportunities to speak at churches, and are generally careful to show themselves as supposedly-honorable members of their religious communities. Beyond that, in many locations, voting is done at the local church, although I don’t protest this too much, for in many small communities, the local church also serves as the community center, and hosting elections there is a more than just a matter of convenience or even preference. And yet, as a self-proclaimed agnostic atheist (I don’t view atheism as a religion, in other words, nor do “practice” atheism dogmatically), one of the things that I wish candidates wouldn’t do is pander to this presumed need. There are, after all, over 30,000 separate Christian denominations in the world. Pandering to one offends another, and I think, shows a that a supposed leader is incapable to effectively lead, resorting instead to the appearance of conformance to a relative minority of the voting public.

If candidates approached this issue logically, I don’t think they’d stoop to the church-hosted photo-ops. To the critical-thinking crowd (many of whom, in certain terms, actually exist in the religious crowd, too), the demonstration of a limited world-view, a relatively intolerant mindset, and a dependency on rote superstition should be quite unattractive. As well, the explicit deference to a minority (and active, participating Christians ARE a minority in this country) should be no more acceptable to the logical mind than the undue influence by any other political lobby. And the critical-thinking crowd shouldn’t be afraid to ask pointed questions to their candidates. Why should we allow such candidates to lead us? Why must we invest our own forms of faith in the good behavior and ethical conduct of those who show, time and time again, the willingness to defer to delusional thinking? Should we ever have to define the “best” candidate in terms of the admirable qualities that they lack? In many ways, those are unfortunately rhetorical questions. The status quo, after all, is a difficult thing to circumvent, let alone redefine. But I fear that if we do not manage to do some day, that even under progressive or liberal control, we will find ourselves living in a Christian State, rife with intolerance and dedicated on converting the world. And when that day comes, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

And to bring this back to the title, the real problem with this is basically just visual. On the left side of the political aisle, you know these aren’t the types of people hell-bent on changing the Constitution to make this a Christian Nation, or even personally dedicated to “saving” all the people of the world. But as such, the very appearance of their deference to these ideals, the very appearance that they take the teachings of their religions seriously, creates a logical disconnect from which it is almost impossible for the likes of me to step aside. I respect and even admire their personal faith, but the mere appearance of a need to even make religion an issue in today’s world is simply silly to me. Even when I was a steadfast, devout conservative Christian (yes, I was, once upon a time), I still had many questions and problems voting for candidates whom I didn’t think I could trust to uphold our rights and protect our freedoms simply on the basis of our citizenship, which is exactly how it’s supposed to be.

Technorati Tags:
1. blog against theocracy
2. anti-theocracy
3. religious hegemony
4. separation of church and state

cross-posted to synthaetica.com under my other pseudonym, “Synthaetica”. coming up next: Easter celebrations in the otherwhirled!

I met my sister for lunch yesterday. Señoracosa is a Catholic. I am an atheist. She told me she prays for me. I thanked her, offering my own good thoughts in return. We love each other.

It’s only recently that my sister learned of my atheism, and when she found out, she admonished me for turning my back on my father’s example. All the same, she respected my opinion because “one’s faith in God is a personal journey.”

I seized on that point. “So you don’t think religiously-based laws should be enacted?”

Señoracosa: No.

Me: And you don’t think the Constitution should be amended to include specific references to God?

Señoracosa: No. Listen up. Faith is all about the personal. It’s about wrestling with your own conscience and finding your own path to God. It’s not about control over what you believe in or how you believe it. At least for me, it’s not.

I was hoping not to take this post to a personal level, but, isn’t that what we’re really talking about here? What I’m conveying by participating in this blogswarm is not so much my desire to never live one day under theocratic rule, but to express my fears of such a life.

It doesn’t matter what faith or denomination rules the roost. As my father is fond of saying, “your rights end where another’s begin,” and under a theocratic government, your rights would end pretty quickly.

As I was running through the scenarios of the things could happen under a theocracy, I started to visualize the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, and wondered what the revised document would look like. Former Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee came to mind, because one of his campaign pledges was this:

“…what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards.”

So here’s how I see the theocratic edits happening.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or but prohibiting the free exercise thereof if does not agree with the state interpretation of the Bible; or and abridging the freedom of speech, or and of the press; or and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free the state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No sSoldiers shall, in at any time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, in at any time of war, but and in any manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated if God deems it necessary., and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

NoAll persons shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crimes against God, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor and shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb if God deems it so. ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by a Court of Inquisition. an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by by a Court of Inquisition jury shall be considered. preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Bible Constitution, of certain God’s rights are absolute, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The All powers are God’s will and you must obey. not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

As my sister I finished our lunch, she re-iterated her intention to keep praying for me. I thanked her again. But before we parted company she stopped me and quoted Matthew 7:3 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

It’s a fair question to ask. But I have to wonder if under a theocracy, even the universal truths of humankind like the one she quoted would be allowed. Probably not. But if we don’t notice the logs in our eyes, pull them out, and visualize what life under a theocratic rule will bring, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves when the phrase “Under God” translates into a jack boot pressing your face to the pavement.

(Cross Posted at My Saturday Evening Post)

For more information on the issues that impact all our lives (Including why Separation is Vital to Democracy), please check out First Freedom First.

While you’re at it, please take a moment to read the other posts in the Blogswarm.

Religion (not faith, not spirituality) has always been an insidious part of the American government. Under President Sociopath, the infusion of religion into policy has gotten even more brazen. As much as the founding fathers tried to keep church and state separate, it has not worked. One of the more effortless channels that has allowed religion to take root in American politics has been something as simple as this passage:

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation, under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Every time I hear those words for some reason I immediately think getting under a desk in an air raid drill – just like we had in the early 1960’s. I have not recited the Pledge since sophomore year of high school, and more than likely I will never recite those words again. Of course the few students (including myself) that chose not to recite the Pledge were subject to [some] pressure. I didn’t succumb. I stood in silence every day for almost 3 years. At least I got a bit of exercise.

Something just doesn’t sit right about pledging allegiance – to a flag, to an object or any symbol. It doesn’t mean I don’t care about my country or my fellow citizens or that I am not patriotic, it just means I don’t think I need to prove it by reciting a “pledge”. There is something very totalitarian and indoctrinating about it to me. It is no better than the bell ringing for one of Pavlov’s dogs.

But forget about what I just wrote about the ‘loyalty oath’ angle — the words “under God” are enough to make my whole autocratic argument moot.

Title 4.4 of the United States Code states that the pledge

should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

The Pledge of Allegiance first appeared in the September 1892 issue Youth’s Companion, a children’s magazine. The author was Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist and Baptist minister. The owners of Youth’s Companion were selling flags to schools, and approached Bellamy to write the Pledge for their advertising campaign. It was marketed as a way to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus arriving in the Americas.

Bellamy’s original Pledge read as follows: “I Pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.” It was seen as a call for national unity and wholeness in country still feeling the leftover scars and divisions 25+ years after the Civil War. The Pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds and not to be a religious calling.

After a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison, the Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892 during Columbus Day observances. (not a pleasant looking guy huh?)

In 1923, the National Flag Conference requested the words “my flag” be changed to the “flag of the United States.” One year later, the words “of America” were added. This particular change was enacted as a way to ensure that immigrants knew that were pledging to the flag of their new home, not their native country. In December 1945, soon after the end of World War II, the U.S. Congress officially recognized as the Pledge as the “official national pledge”.

Needless to say the Pledge has had a very controversial history.

In 1940 the Supreme Court ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to recite the Pledge. In 1943, the Supreme Court reversed its decision, in the landmark case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. The court ruled in that “compulsory unification of opinion” violated the First Amendment. Since this ruling, public schools (even in 2008) cannot force student to recite the pledge, nor can they punish them. That would surprise a lot of people, since the way the pledge is positioned and performed in almost all public schools – you would think it is a requirement.

Under God

Feeling a reference to a deity was necessary, The Knights of Columbus began a campaign in 1951 to add the words “under God” to the Pledge. In February 1954, President Eisenhower attended a service in which the speaker – Revered George Docherty, gave a sermon about the flag and patriotism — and adroitly used Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (which contains “under God”) to push Eisenhower to act with respect to adding “under God.” Couple that with the fact 1954 was the beginning of the Cold War with the “godless” Soviet Union, you have a recipe for the perfect Pledge re-write. A bill was quickly introduced and passed in Congress. The phrase “under God” was added after “One Nation” when Eisenhower signed a bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. You can lay good money on the outcome of that legislation — a lot more controversy. Welcome to one more step in the creeping terror of mixing religion with state.

Since that last wording change, there have been many challenges to both the pledge and especially “under God.” A variety of organizations have attacked it from many different angles. Jehovah’s Witnesses want the words eliminated since their beliefs preclude swearing loyalty. Critics and progressives say that “under God” violates the Establishment Clause of the First amendment with respect to freedom of religion, as it gives the impression of religious endorsement by the government. Atheists say it demonstrates that God is a required part of society. Non-Christian groups say it refers to Christianity, while polytheists say it sanctions monotheism.

Other groups just have a problem with the entire pledge. Libertarians say a loyalty oath is just another form of socialism. People have challenged individual words as a reason to negate the whole Pledge – indivisible doesn’t work since states can secede; liberty and justice for all doesn’t fit since that concept really doesn’t exist. Some even say the Pledge trivializes patriotism. The list goes on — why does it have to be recited every day? Doesn’t this show how arrogant we are? Why are we pledging to a flag instead of ideal? Does it overly-influence children? Do they really know what they are saying? Yadda yadda yadda.

As you can see, the Pledge of Allegiance and the words “under God” make people uncomfortable and ill-at-ease. A lot of people. Including me. I really do not see the need for the words “under God”, and for that matter the Pledge itself. The only fully happy, shiny people with respect to “under God” clause are the wingnuts, the uber-nationalists and, of course the US Congress. The words “under God” truly tip this from “I love my country” to “the higher being loves us.”

In 1992, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the words “under God” did not violate the Establishment clause. Then in 2002, the Ninth Circuit ruled “under God” was unconstitutional.

Enter the fundamentalists, jingoists and other assorted nut cases – who went wild at that ruling. The Senate, House and Idiot President all spoke out in favor of keeping “under God.” (big surprise huh!) The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court in 2oo4 and was overturned on a technicality (the parent of the child in the school did not have custodial standing). SCOTUS dodged the proverbial bullet — the constitutionality of the pledge and “under God” were not addressed. The Republic was saved!

In their great tradition of mixing politics and jingoism, and in the spirit of eliminating any further cases to junk the words “under God,” the Congress introduced – H.R. 2389 in 2005. That bill would strip the Supreme Court and federal courts of any power to consider legal challenges to government requiring or promoting of the Pledge of Allegiance. H.R. 2389 was passed by the Republican led House of Representatives in July 2006, but failed when the Senate did not take it up.

If you can’t stop the court from acting by shaming them, just pass a law. The creeping terror continues.

• WATER
• OIL
• Religion
• Finances
• Belief
• Democracy
• Sacred Republic
• Spiritualism
• Oligarchy
• Divine Plutocracy
• Holy Leadership
• Blessing
• Reverence
• Laws
• Prayer
• Regulation
• God
• Federation
• Bible
• Constitution
• Scripture
• Power

 

Mix above ingredients well in a patriarchal bowl, add at least one egg, a touch of salt, some baking powder, milk, sweat, testosterone, and a tablespoon of vanilla. Set aside, allow to ferment for a number of years until mixture is unrecognizable, sickening, and useless, then toss into the nearest landfill. Teach to next generation, insist on adherence to recipe. Repeat ad nauseum.

Good Scissorheads and friends know that I recently had to send Thurber J Wolf “to college” (that’s the euphemism, and I’m sticking with it). It came after a long, slow, and painful decline. Some years before, he had been viciously attacked, and the end result was a collapsing trachea, and there was no prognosis for recovery. There was no surgery, no miracle cure; there was only going to be more pain and eventually asphyxiation.

The once proud dog, a mid-sized terrier full of vim and vigor, was in so much pain from constantly coughing from the collapsed trachea that he lost the bounce in his step. Walks were to be endured rather than enjoyed. Instead of chasing the squirrels on his last day, we sat at the foot of the tree in the park and he made an occasional growl. He even refused the cheese I offered him at our last picnic. He did accept some of the pork sausage, his favorite thing in the world.

Mostly Thurber looked at me, quizzically. How could I, the guy who always fixed everything for him, not take care of him now? Thurber always was fascinated that I could be gone for 30 minutes and come home with a pound of meat – such a hunter! How could I not help him now? His every glance seemed to be saying, “Why don’t you do something?”

So later that day, that horrible day that I knew a week ahead of time was coming, we were in the Vet’s office. It was a very gentle process, and yes, going to sleep is an apt metaphor. I held him, rubbing him at the base of his tail and holding his paw and whispering “good boy” into his ear as he relaxed and ultimately went to sleep to not wake up again. I promised him as a puppy that I would be there for him when the time came, and nothing on this sweet earth was going to stop me. He was out of his pain at last, and as difficult as it was, I know that it was the right and best thing I could do for my best friend.

I compare that to the death of my father, and I am appalled.

So how can it be that my dog had a more humane release than my father, who died a year earlier after a long, slow, and painful decline? How could it be that a proud Marine Corp Captain was nightly pulling the feeding tube out out of his nose, and IVs out of his arm, and the doctors were not allowed to let him go? How is it that my 30 pound dog died with more dignity than my WWII war hero father?

The end of life decision is probably the most personal decision anyone can ever make. This decision cannot and should not be made for us by some pontificating poltroon politician seeking to impose his own religious agenda.

I do not have a lot of hope that when my time comes to join my Dad and my dog that I will be allowed to go with dignity. I worry that I too will be kept in stasis for a number of days, weeks, months, and yes, years against my will, a virtual Terri Schiavo, because some opportunist gets political “bounce” out of keeping me on this mortal coil past my own expiration date. 

WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN     

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary to pray to God, you’re in deep shit. 

The key word is “necessary.”

If you just feel like praying, go right ahead. I’m sure you, and it, will be fine. But when leaders feel it necessary to pray to God, we’re probably all in deep shit. 

Especially if their decisions are going to be based on —make that “BIASED on”  — the particular god in which they espouse credence. Especially if they also intend that particular god to —by extension— be your god at that time.Even if they make that god your god by extension unintentionally, there is a problem. 

“Houston, we have a problem—-there’s a god outside the main porthole and it’s claiming it has the right to override Mission Control for the fiery descent. Frankly, Houston, we’re a little concerned about just what is meant here by “fiery descent” . . .Out.” 

The problem is a simple one. Your god and my god might be family:  first cousins, second cousins, long lost interbred half nephews, whatever, they might even be brother and sister. Hey, they might be married for all I know—the point is, they might disagree with one another. They might not even like one another—they might hate each other’s guts. But if you insist on saying that what your god says goes as well for what my god says, your god is pulling a power grab.

Trying to seize the reins for itself so to speak. Not fair. 

Especially when the rules in the USA are already quite clear: written guarantee of freedom of religious expression and the right to choose whatever god seems most helpful toward that life, liberty, and right to happiness thing. If their god is interfering in any way with that l,l, and rth thing, then there is a distinct problem with our Constitutional guarantees.

If someone else is forcing their god on us, we have a Constitutional right to say to them:

“Please take your god somewhere it can’t hurt people, maybe stick it up your big fat or skinny _ _ _”

You get the idea. 

Just so they get it.

Folks –

My tradition requires that I reprise a post from one of the Scissorheads, Xristim who passed away in December 2006. She was one of the bravest and best friends this blog or this boy could ever have. She was a Christian, but she was wary of the Religious Right. This is from a comment she posted in November, 2006.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Dedicated to the Absolutely Sure of Absolutely Everything
From Someone Who Isn’t
(c) XristiM 1998-2006

Into their Lazarus mouths they pop
God like round peppermint lozenges,
and with their resurrected teeth
grind Him small,
roll the bits with their tongues,
flooding them with saliva and
the exhalations of digestion.
Then they amble forth
to perform the work for which
they have anointed themselves
and each other,
breathing the judgment of an angry God strongly
into the nostrils of others.

We can hear them at a distance,
from close enough can detect the stench
of self-righteousness.
And a wary eye can detect them in our midst,
with coats that show glossy fronts,
but on their backs,
hidden from their view
and from ours
unless we trouble ourselves to look,
reveal scraps and patches
like bandages over festering sores.

We may protest, draw back in distaste,
alarmed to have God thrust upon us
smelling so pungently of mint
and the charnel house,
but they are relentless in pursuit
of fleeing souls.
They paralyze us with their certainty
that God lives in their mouths.

For myself, I think the God has filed
His change of address:
He resides
not in the mouth, but in the heart.

This is my second year of participation in Blog Against Theocracy, hosted by Tengrain. This article will be cross-posted there. I hope to follow it up with articles tomorrow and Sunday as well. I am proud to be a participant and encourage you to visit Tengrain’s blog to read other articles posted there by many other bloggers.

First, let my state my own perspective. I am a Christian. While you might ask why I’m not on the other side of this issue, I believe that opposition to theocracy is the true Christian perspective, as my Christianity is based on faith, not dogma. That faith empowers progressive values, not the intolerance, greed and bigotry that has sadly come to be associated with Christianity through the actions of a powerful minority.

Next, exactly what is it that I am opposing here? Lets turn to Webster:

.

.

Main Entry:

the·oc·ra·cy

Pronunciation:

\thē-ˈä-krə-sē\

Function:

noun

Inflected Form(s):

plural the·oc·ra·cies

Etymology:

Greek theokratia, from the- + -kratia -cracy

Date:

1622

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided 2 : a state governed by a theocracy

Next, why should theocracy be opposed? Were only the very first part of the first definition operative, I’d have no problem with it. After all, could God be a worse President than the Grand Inquisitor of the Texas Taliban? But governance by God is not at issue here. The problem is that religious right fundamentalists, whom I call theocons, are seeking to impose their dogma and piety codes on others, claiming that they are divinely guided. Are they? Consider this:

The 2001 edition [World Christian Encyclopedia], successor to his 1983 first edition, which took a decade to compile, identifies 10,000 distinct religions, of which 150 have 1 million or more followers. Within Christianity, he counts 33,830 denominations.

Inserted from <Adherents.com>

What we have here is 33,830 different interpretations of what Christianity is. Assume, just for the sake of argument that one of them is correct. In that case, 33,829 are wrong. The likelihood that the theocons have a handle on truth, given all these alternate interpretations, is infinitesimally small.

Fortunately, our Constitution is the first line of defense in opposition to the theocons. The First Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A law respecting an establishment of religion would be any law that gives preferential treatment to any religion over any other religion. In my opinion, the only manner whereby this may be accomplished is a complete separation of church and state, a legal doctrine that has been the status quo for most of our nation’s history. The theocons oppose this principle with two arguments. First, they claim the phrase means something else and that the separation of church and state was never the intent of the founders. Second, that argue that, since the US is a “Christian nation”, founded on Christianity, that the term refers to different denominations of Christianity, not to other religions. Thus, as long as a law favors Christianity in a non-denominational way, it’s fine. Both arguments are false.

Regarding the founders’ true intent, I found the following quotes at About.com.

From Thomas Jefferson:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” [emphasis added]

And from James Madison:

“The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.” [emphasis added]

Regarding the notion that the US is a “Christian nation”, the following is the 11th Article of the Treaty of Tripoli, read aloud and unanimously approved by the US Senate on June 7, 1797. President John Adams signed it into law.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. [emphasis added]

Simply put, these theocon claims to justify their attempt to establish an unconstitutional theocracy in order to impose their dogma on those who disagree are based on lies.

In this article, I have demonstrated why we must oppose this assault upon our liberty from a secular perspective. In my next, I shall do so from a Christian perspective.

Cross-posted at Politics Plus

Blogging against theocracy

I have been trying to practice the Christian faith since I was a small child, and I’m nowhere near good at it yet. I have been part of a dizzying array of groups, from calm mainline Protestants to wild charismatics to stern evangelicals to a lively set of Episcopal parishes, one progressive Catholic parish, and a Catholic graduate school.

I have also learned a great deal about holiness and faith from friends who follow Islam and others who identify themselves as Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, Pagan, agnostic, and atheist. In a theocracy, one set of us would have been dictating to the others, and none of us would have had the rich and respectful conversations that we treasure as we pray for each other in our own ways, or, in the case of the agnostics and atheists, wish each other well. That would be a terrible loss.

I don’t want anything resembling a theocracy because faith cannot be imposed. It can only be chosen, and only free people can choose. People can be forced to give lip service to a set of beliefs, but that is not faith: it is spiritual oppression, and that is an evil thing. St. Thomas Aquinas recognized that, way back in the middle ages, when he wrote that it was wrong to force the children of non-Christians to be baptized. The imposition of a set of beliefs is a counterfeit of faith, and makes the real faith that comes from freedom more difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. To put it simply and radically, theocracy is blasphemy: it denies our freedom to choose faith.

Theocracies always end up killing people in the name of God, which is just plain wrong. Whether you believe that God is bloodthirsty or that people get out of hand and do things their deity would never want done, something ugly and yes, ungodly is happening when people are killed in the name of faith. The politics of conquest, practiced in the name of religion, ends up killing faith itself.

Faith works best when it is calling people and nations to account against deep standards of justice and love. Faith should critique the status quo, not enforce it. The job of the faithful is, as a priest I loved used to say, to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. Faith is the voice of the prophet, chewing out the powers that be. The prophet should never accept a position at court.

Reefer Madness!

OK, so it is not news exactly that the fundies believe that there is a gay agenda. But this is such an Invasion-of-the-Body-Snatchers approach, it is probably doing more harm to their cause than anything a lefty blogger can do. I really found myself laughing aloud rather than being appalled.

OK, but are the fundies worried about Volvos coming to Eureka Springs, Arkansas? That Volvo looks like it is happy to see me:

What about the Chipotle Grill down at the mall?

So where do you draw the line? We already heard that the Teletubbies, Sponge Bob, and god only knows who else are out to seduce the innocent, but do these peeps really believe that there is an organized attempt to take over all their towns — oh, yeah.

It is the Fundamentalists themselves. It’s called “projection.”