What Religion Becomes a Political Hopeful Most?

Such religious expediency is far from new.

Consider King Henry IV, France's only Protestant king; he converted to Catholicism out of political expediency in mostly-Catholic France, stating that "Paris is well worth a mass."

Likewise, 1950's Presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson had converted from Unitarianism to Presbyterianism, and 1990's Presidential candidate Bob Dole had converted from Methodism to some more fundie sect.

And someone pointed out that Stevenson attributed his "conversion" to the fact that a Presbyterian church was more conveniently located. Dole said that the doctrines of the Methodist church were not consistent with his "Christian beliefs." How many Methodist votes did he lose because of that?

As an athiest, I'm a bit irritated by the implication that atheism can lead to objectivism; as if being religious is a factor in caring for poorer people than yourself. Why then, is the most economically right-wing party in America the most pious?

As an athiest, I'm a bit irritated by the implication that atheism can lead to objectivism; as if being religious is a factor in caring for poorer people than yourself. Why then, is the most economically right-wing party in America the most pious?

Norrie, From your mouth to the gods ears...as long as the Pagan was honest and worked for what was right for the country. There are many Pagans that I would not want to hire as dog catcher, but there are some that I would vote for for the senate or President without a worry.

I did not know about the Vermont Statehouse...how wonderful. Your state is many times blest. Do you know the story of Demeter, Persephone and Hecate?

"The rites of Eleusis overshadowed the civilization of that time, absorbing other smaller schools, and influencing the development of democracy, culture and the arts.
- Geoffrey Hodson, "The Still-functioning Greater and Lesser Mysteries"

The Rites of Demeter were held at Eleusis.The ancients in Greece created democratic government...while they were honoring the Gods.

The Lady standing in New York harbor is the Goddess Libertas; Goddess of Individual liberty. Our Lady Justice is the Goddess Themis. We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us...and that includes the gods.
The concepts that this country is so proud of was born in the temples of the Gods; Freedom, democracy,equality,liberty, justice...name it, the Gods made it so first.

The Lady Demeter is one that I honor, also Her daughter Kore-Persephone.
~~~
I am the blessed Mother, the gracious Lady of the harvest. I am clothed with the deep, cool wonder of the Earth and the gold of the fields heavy with grain. By me the tides of the Earth are ruled ; things come to fruition according to my season. I am refuge and healing. I am the life-giving Mother, wondrously fertile.
~~~

Oh and Mr. Mark, capitalize the P in Pagan please.

terra

The Fool in his heart says there is no Tinkerbell.

"In a more enlightened future, mankind will, thankfully, be shown and realize that we are not the center of the universe."

Hmmm, with each passing year and still no contact with other galactic humanoids, maybe we are.

In a more enlightened future, mankind will, thankfully, be shown and realize that we are not the center of the universe.

Religious thinking is the epitome of thinking in the box.
The box is shaped like a church.
In that box everybody nods together and thinks the same things.
Thus is everyone's belief reinforced and cemented.
The greatest lies and the most nonsensical ideas,
are irresistible in such a box.

The middle east,and the US are maybe
the last great bastions of ancient religious superstitions,
where they continue to indoctrinate their children
into believing in the supernatural.
One day,hopefully,in a more enlightened future, it will be against the law.

Mr. Mark, my friend,

If you read Robert Frost's poem, "The Witch of Coos", about "old-believers" just across the river from Vermont in New Hampshire, or if you observed Vermont farmers at events on the State House lawn, you might not be so quick to write:

"Of course, even the most-religious can't or won't really object to the pagan goddess because they consider that to be a fairy tale, the equivalent of having Winnie-the-Pooh sitting atop the Court building. In that, they are correct - a pagan goddess is no more real than the gods they worship."

Some of the folks in our hills take Demeter-Ceres quite seriously, though the "new-believers" (Christians) don't.

Best wishes.

Anonymous,

In decades past it was common for those who couldn't face up to the reality of pornography and what it portrayed, to call it "boring".

Boring.

NORRIE HOYT writes:

"I do find it delightful that, while Alabama had its Ten Commandments forcibly expelled from its Supreme Court building, a statue of a pagan goddess stands atop Vermont's State House, which contains the legislative chambers and the Governor's ceremonial office."

Of course, even the most-religious can't or won't really object to the pagan goddess because they consider that to be a fairy tale, the equivalent of having Winnie-the-Pooh sitting atop the Court building. In that, they are correct - a pagan goddess is no more real than the gods they worship.

But I can't help but believe the Xians would be in an uproar if the statue were that of Mohammed or Allah, or if there were a statue of Jesus sitting there with calls for it to be torn down.

The trick is to get those who follow the 3 great religions to admit (realize?) that their gods are fairy tales as well.

Perhaps then we can adorn our Statehouses with more Ethan Allen types.

Priver,

Of course I agree with you. I was having a little hopeful fun.

I do find it delightful that, while Alabama had its Ten Commandments forcibly expelled from its Supreme Court building, a statue of a pagan goddess stands atop Vermont's State House, which contains the legislative chambers and the Governor's ceremonial office. Once in a great while, truth and right prevail, even in a government building.

The grand front entrance doors to the State House are guarded by a supersized heroic statue of Vermont's founding hero, Ethan Allen, who wrote extensively of the errors of the Christian religion, and of his hatred for it.

Come and visit us in Vermont, y'all! You'll have a pleasant respite from Bush, big cities, reactionary Republicans, religious fundamentalists and theological crazies (though you can visit the birthplace of Joseph Smith).

***[This advertisement not yet approved by the Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing]***

Hi Norrie,

You certainly seem more optimistic about the idea of a Pagan presidency in the future than I am. Maybe I should put bars on my windows to keep out the flying pigs. :)

I figure the atheists and Pagans right now have about a neck-and-neck shot at being the person that most voters in this country would never go for. A couple of coworkers were talking not too long ago in my office about someone who was an atheist and one said 'at least they're not Pagan'. Little did they know.. the Pagan was watching everything. :)

Even as a Pagan, I'm not sure I'd want a Pagan to be elected President solely on a religious basis.

There seems to be something about politicians in general. They may sometimes get into it for the right reasons initially, but given a taste of power, it usually doesn't stay that way. And I always hate to see a good person brought down that way, no matter what their religion.

If someone has a religion, of any kind, but wants to keep it out of government, then they'll have my attention. If they have good ideas, can take responsibility for their actions good and bad, and bring some inspiration to the office, they'll have my vote.

FOR JIHADIST AND SUSAN:

Jihadist,

I just found your posts earlier in this thread. It's good to see you here. I hope all's well with you and your family.

It was nice of you to write:

"Surely as a believer, if I am in a foxhole with Norrie Hoyt and Maurie Beck, and a grenade comes in, I would throw myself on the grenade thinking I'll go to heaven with 72 virgins waiting for me (You got to ask Yoyo on the 72 virgins in heaven. The Qu'ran never specified the gender or numbers). At least I'll save Norrie Hoyt and Maurie Beck and be a martyr for them:)."

I appreciate your altruistic intention and, if I were in a foxhole, I know I'd feel a lot better if you were there beside me. But I wouldn't want you to immolate yourself on a grenade so that I'd survive.

As at least a quasi-Buddhist, I have some prospect of being reincarnated and having a fresh start toward enlightenment, while I'm not at all sure what, as a Muslim, your afterlife destination would be.

So my advice to you would be to try to save yourself physically.

Jihadist and Susan,

With all this discussion of religion and government/politics, I thought you might enjoy this post I made on another thread:

"PAGANS, BE OF GOOD CHEER:

"The present Vermont State House was built in 1859.

"Since then, its golden dome has been topped with a tall wooden carving of the Greco-Roman pagan goddess Demeter-Ceres, the goddess of agriculture and fertility.

"For the last 148 years, all of Vermont's laws have been made under her oversight and tutelage.

"When the time is right, Vermonters will see that she is lodged atop the U.S. capitol building.

"Then the first pagan U.S. President will be elected.

"Be patient - your time is coming."

My wife and I were married in the State House (still the only couple to have been married there), directly below the three-dimensional image of Demeter-Ceres.

We later had two fine sons - certainly conclusive evidence of the power of our fertility goddess - can images of Yahweh do as much?

We wrote our own marriage vows - promising to stay together as long as we felt like it. Good Pagan doctrine, is it not?

Best to both of you.

Yours in Demeter-Ceres.

"... the American version of representative government assures that such qualities as intellect and ethics as might equip a man to lead a powerful nation responsibly are precisely the qualities that would prevent him from subjecting himself to the debasing performances of vote begging and delegate swapping. It is a truism of American politics that no man who can win elections deserves to." ~Trevanian, "Shibumi"

On top of that observation (which I happen to agree with) we are faced with this... polls tell us that an atheist cannot get elected to high office. Also, about 40 studies over the past 80 years tell us that the MORE intelligent a person is, the LESS likely they are to be religious. Why?... Well I think it is because the more intelligent a person is, the sharper their critical thinking skills (potentially) are... and religious 'belief' simply cannot withstand the bright, glaring light of knowledge, reason and critical thought. It just evaporates... poof. When we get into the ranks of the smartest people... the elites of science... we find that less than 5% of them harbor any beliefs in divine powers.

How about that? The smartest people among us... the ones that have proven ability for critical thinking... will never run, because they know that they do not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.

Polls tell us that around 10% of the population are atheists... so that means that there should be about 10 atheist Senators and about 43 atheist Representatives... but there is only ONE member of Congress who acknowledges that he is an atheist. SO... are there about 53 members of congress who are LYING about their religious beliefs, because they know that they have to do that in order to get elected? Or, are there LESS than that, because atheists will not run? OR... since the studies tell us that the smarter someone is, then the LESS likely he is to be religious... and there are LOTS of smart people in congress... does that mean that there are MORE than 53 lying atheists in congress?... alongside all the RELIGIOUS liars?

Which is worse?... Having a climate in which the very best, very smartest, most ethical, most qualified people can not even THINK about running? A climate where the only way a really smart, critically-thinking person can get elected is to compromise his ethics, and LIE about his religious convictions?

It is my contention that about 85%+ of the population of the USA is actually INCAPABLE of critical thinking... and based upon my observations that religious belief is a pretty reliable indicator for the ABSENSE of critical thinking skills... and based upon the DECLARED religious belief of members of Congress, I'd have to say that 99.8% of congress does NOT possess critical thinking skills... so I'd say we're pretty much screwed, no matter HOW this turns out. (Not that that represents a change, or anything like that.)

Somehow, it is not very encouraging to think that the few members of congress that might actually HAVE critical thinking skills (save ONE) are liars.

Here's a question that I'd like to see asked in the next Republican presidential debate...

Senator Brownback... as President, what steps will you take to advance the fundamentalist Christian 'dominionist' agenda, that being to overturn the Bill of Rights and transform the USA into a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, based on Old Testament biblical law?

Followup question: So, Senator... after you are elected, how long would it be before you use the 'bully pulpit' to 'explain' to the Americal people how our country is ordained by scripture to take the lead in implementing the 'rule of God' here on earth... charged with facilitating the setup of the conditions that are prophesied to precede the return of Our Lord Jesus, the destruction of 'un-saved', and the establishment of His new Kingdom here on earth?

I know that Brownback is a 'dominionist'... anybody know of any others?

We are truly screwed.

Joe Jew writes:
"Any believer will find it hard to swallow her assertion that believers are less entitled to a share of Tax- payers money than atheists. Since when do believers not pay tax."

You're kidding right? Or did you miss the point entirely?

If not, then I want the taxpayers to build and fund my church next!

It's the Church of Holy Cow which of course is tax exempt!

Why is it that believers always want something for nothing? Maybe it's because they are just used to getting inside deals and preferential treatment!

Jihadist - I think you've failed to make your point as to the superiority of Islam over Buddhism. While it's true that you can find despotic rule in Buddhist countries, the entire Muslim world is ruled by despotism, either militarily or through monarchical rule - in either case, autocractic and authoritarian through and through. The is seen by many as both primitive and even atavistic by many in other parts of the world.

You don't have the moral high ground here in any sense - Islam contributed greatly in the distant past to world culture via mathematics and literature (the great Sufi poet Rumi comes to mind) - but now and in the recent past the Muslim world is contributing oil, and lots of it .... this is just commerce after all, and the authoritarian few in oil-generating countries are the ones benefiting to a hugely excessive degree.

Any religion will have a hard time claiming the moral high ground when taken over time and at a cultural level - religion is afterall a function and reflection of the greater society and culture in which it's embedded - we need to view religion more in an anthropological and sociological sense, if we're to make any sense of it at all in my opinion.

RB,

Thanks for the long and short of the Strauss & Howe thesis. I'll pick up the book when I get a chance.

Jozevz,

Hello, my friend. How are you??? You were scarce on these blogs for a while, but I see you bounced back.

The 9/11 Saudi Attas were devout believers. They offered, like Jesus, the "ultimate sacrifice". They had very "realistic" ideas about their afterlife. They were certainly no atheists, to whom according to Bush the Constitution does not apply, therefore eligible to be first rate US citizens. They took their religion seriously. They were no hypocrits. They had a clear concept about meriting paradise. Wonderful people, for the criteria the religious posters have to offer. I cannot find any other criteria they have NOT in common with the most devout and pious Christian ilk, no matter of which particular denomination.

Main distinction: Their creed starts with an "I", the others' creed starts with a "C".

If you think they were crazy, just continue thinking... and you might come to astounding conclusions!

Atheistic rants tend to have one common factor they are outdated and show no awareness that eighteenth century postulated are simply obsolete. What sets this article below the norm is the arrogant assumption of the writer that her outdated views are somehow consistent with her own former faith.
She is obviously as ignorant of Judaism as she is of the origins of her own beliefs.

Any believer will find it hard to swallow her assertion that believers are less entitled to a share of Tax- payers money than atheists. Since when do believers not pay tax. Back in the days when her views first were articulated, there was a brave man who coined a slogan: No taxation without representation. Obviously this goes against the writers belief, in disbelief.

"There really is a god there really is a god there really is a god there really is a god there really is a god there really is a god there really is a god".
Mother Teresa.
What I Believe

Gaby,

Its part of that Pilgrim streak that leads Americans to be so moralistic, and the fact that America was settled by immigrants belonging to religious movements (Quakers, Mormons, Protestants of many flavors, etc), not to mention later waves of Catholic imigrants from Ireland and Italy.

In Strauss & Howe's theory, every 4th generation is consumed by spiritual issues. There is a linkage down through the generations that were Reformationists, Abolitionists, Prohibitionists, etc. to Baby Boomers. The idealistic outlook that fostered the civil rights and "peace and love" movements of the sixties is the same one that has led us to fight the "values wars" of the 2000s. All of the primary actors in the conflicts are Baby Boomers: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robinson, the feminist movement leaders, Bush, the Clintons, etc.

Our parents, the ones who fought WW-II, were of a generation that was named the Civic generation by Strauss & Howe. The Civics also recur every 4th generation. There are 2 more generational types: one that falls between the Civics and the Baby Boomers and one that came after the Baby Boomers (so-called Gen-X). These other 2 generational types also recur every 4th generation and have their own attributes.

The authors have devised approximately 20-year periods to delineate the generations. The Boomer generation (according to their theory) is made up of people born approximately 1945 to 1964. Those born between 1926 to 1945 were too young to serve in WW-II, but they fought the Korean War. The Civic generation, who came into adulthood during the depression and WW-II, were born approximately 1906-1925.

The Civic generation is of a type that builds society's institutions. When they age, they cede control to the next generation which is mostly concerned with not letting the Civics down and doing a good job administering society. They are much more concerned with process (due process, fair play, equal protection, a fair hearing, etc.) than morality. When they age and cede control to the Boomers' type of generation, all hell breaks loose because we fight all or nothing battles over values issues.

The Gen-X's get the worst of it. Having born the brunt of society's experiments with changing moral values (contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, metrosexuality, priests leaving the priesthood, woman joining the priesthood, single parenting, gay parenting, etc. on and on) they get the short end of the stick from society. As a result, they gow up to be much more pragmatic, competent, and resourceful than Baby Boomers and have much more stable personal relationships.

Strauss & Howe do discuss the fact that corresponding generations occur in Europe and what impact they have had on European history and our shared history. There is a lot of discussion regarding to what extent the same generational types in Europe encounter the same generational dynamics proposed to have occurred in the States.

However, the focus of Strauss & Howe is on the attributes and dynamics of the generations in America.

You might get a kick out of reading their theory and figuring to what extent it may apply to Europeans (and Canadians, god bless 'em) as well!

McCain might be "babbling" but said type of babbling worked for Reagan and for the Bush family. It also saved Bill Clinton. (The old "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her" defense as per John 8:1-30).

Election Day is November 4, 2008

RB, you said:

"Strauss & Howe's thesis is that the Baby Boom generation is a much more judgmental group than the immediate past or future generations of Americans and see things in more moral, absolute terms, regardless of which side of the issue they are on. "

Interesting thesis, but Baby Boomers are not exclusive to America. I belong to that generation as well, however, I grew up in Europe. Since living in the US for the last 25 years, the attitude I am seeing is an astoundingly American phenomenon. I just don't get it. Here we are the most advanced nation on earth, yet our thinking level when it comes to religion is as irrational as that of the Middle Easterners we bash so wholesalely.

We grew up in the era of rock and roll, flower children, Vietnam, Kent University, the Selma and Montgomery marches, the first landing on the moon, the assassination of JFK, etc. We were young and exuberant, questioning authority, having ideals. What has happened to us??? What made us so judgmental and morally superior???

The European folks my age don't seem to hold that same moralistic, "I am better than thou", "It's my way or the highway" type attitude. They appear to be much more open and generous and they are smart enough not to mix religion with politics.

Dear Gaby:

For a good explanation of why this is happening now, check out 2 books by William Strauss & Neil Howe:

1. Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069; and

2. The Fourth Turning.

Strauss & Howe's thesis is that the Baby Boom generation is a much more judgmental group than the immediate past or future generations of Americans and see things in more moral, absolute terms, regardless of which side of the issue they are on. Since the Baby Boomers are at their peak age for leading government, business, community, etc., their views and attitudes dominate the tone of the debate. As a member of this generation, I feel compelled to apologize for our lack of tolerance and our complete disdain for due process and "fair play."

Steve B, UK:

I agree. I think part of the problem is that people in the US are not necessarily aware that there are folks out there who have already learned to be pluralistic and that what is 'different' is not always 'bad'.

I would vote for ANY candidate, regardless of religion, who makes taking care of others in need a priority in their lives. I hate hypocrisy and pandering. A person's religion is nobody's business except their own. Keep it out of the government and the government out of my religion.

We have to really decide if we mean what we say. or if we're the biggest hypocrites of them all by pretending to give religious freedom but only if it squares up with what the majority says is ok.

America can do better.

Dear Susan Jacoby

Are you aware that

1 you are buried, and are hard to locate

2 the comments link is sometimes disabled, and

3 this question is dull and not very interesting.

Maybe the Washington Post is having some problems with this forum? I am not blaming anybody; it is probably quite a job to keep this thing going day-in, day-out. But, I have been having a hard time accessing it for a few days.

Anonymous said:

"Wake up. You've forgotten 9.11. Crazed Muslims flew hijacked planes into buildings killing themselves and many innocent Americans. They were screaming "allahu akbar". We are at war. And it was six years ago."

Anon, I am quite aware of 9/11 and what happened on that day. But I also believe that since (almost) 6 years have elapsed we need to put it behind us. I am not saying forget it, I am saying get over it. I know that is not a popular view, but that is the way I feel.

Instead of staging a massive manhunt for the individuals (crazed Muslims as you put it)responsible, we used 9/11 as a platform to invade Iraq, when the Iraqis had little or nothing to do with it. Instead of bringing peace and democracy into that region we have managed to tear the country apart. Lawlessness prevails, Iraqis killing Iraqis in the name of their religious convictions, and we are sitting here with mounting deaths of military personnel not to speak of the cost of the war.

In the meantime another presidential election is rolling around where we worry what religion our running candidates are rather than focusing on his/her capabilities of running this country responsibly and according to the Constitution and all prevailing laws. Religions need to stay out of government, yet the influence of the Christian right is undoubtedly there and that is a crying shame

Steve B.UK

Of course not ALL religious people do dumb things.
And some religions are better than others in terms of the damage they cause.
As Sam Harris says in his latest piece,Islam is way more dangerous than most other religions,though Christianity has done its fair share of slaughtering people too.But Christianity's days of violence are over,thanks to the Enlightenment and the rise of rationalism.
But there's no doubt that Islam is the curse,and threatens Western civilization.There doesn't seem to be a solution either,which I personally find very scary.
It might help if we were more vocal about it,instead of being so passive.They've taken down the WTC and a chunk of the pentagon.And it isn't over yet.

YOYO

Yes,the supernatural is everywhere,in books,on television,and in films.You might say the supernatural is part of our daily lives,and makes it easy to believe that there really is a supernatural world.It is everywhere in the media.
Somebody should write a book about how many movies have supernatural plots,from witchcraft to ghosts,to
reincarnation,body snatchers,the dead coming back from heaven,or looking down from heaven,or little boys turning into men,or vice versa;so many where divine intervention,miracles,and all kinds of fantasy is sold as if real,or possible.
Maybe Susan should make this the subject of her next book. "How Hollywood Keeps Us Dumbed Down And Gullible". It would be a most interesting study.
Films and TV are incredible influences in our lives,and often makes gibberish believable.
Jimbo

Steve B, UK posted: "Anon: If you think the 'Christian Right' and 'Democracy' mix any better, you're very mistaken"

Hear, hear!

He further posted: "Some of us are sick of the groupthink that's everywhere now too..."

I'm SICK TO DEATH of the doublethink, newspeak, thought police, and the constant insistance and acceptance that "unevangelical oldthinkers unbellyfeel America" as put forth by "doubleplusgood duckspeakers" is at all valid! C'mon people, THINK for yourselves! They are creating the 2% Inner Party, 13% Outer Party, and 85% Prole social hierarchy...and you're allowing it!

Pandering is Pandering.

All the Democratic candidates were asked about their favorite Bible verse:

-Joe Biden: Christ's warning about the Pharisees from the gospel according to John.

-Hillary Clinton: The golden rule from the gospel according to Luke.

-Chris Dodd: The parable of the Good Samaritan from Luke.

-John Edwards: Christ's admonition to help the least among us from the gospel according to Matthew.

-Mike Gravel: Love as the most important value, from Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

-Dennis Kucinich: St. Francis's prayer to make us instruments of peace.

-Barack Obama: Sermon on the Mount from the gospel according to Matthew.

-Bill Richardson: Sermon on the Mount from Matthew.

Pandering is pandering, even if the pandering seems to agree with your preconceived notions of reality. Politicians as a breed will say whatever they feel will work, and if you as a voter eat this swill then you have nobody but yourself to blame.
If you think it's wise and wonderful for your particular religious slant to be (influencing or tainting) the politicial discourse then you are quite mistaken if you think the taint/influence will only work in that one direction. Politicians will try to control you through your religion, you can be sure they will greatly value the large population of unquestioning believers. Attach their political message to your faith, and you won't question their political agenda any more than you will question your faith.

I don't blame the politicians for this, it's in their nature as vultures to eat rotten meat this way. No, I blame the religious who think the pandering to their agenda means the world will be a better place.

Honestly, what makes you think you can control politics with your religion? Why do you think it won't actually work in the other direction? Why don't you ever ask any questions?

I know the pagans on here probably say this a lot, but JIMBO: not all "seriously religious" people can be made to do things "for good or evil".

Most Neopaganism is non-dualistic, that is it doesn't break things down into ultimate good vs evil. Because that's overly simplistic, prone to abuse, and not the only way to do things.

Some religions have you responsible for your own actions, not letting others dictate them, and refuse to play the black-and-white worldview so famously held by Bush. It's not 'with us or against us', it's shades of grey applied with intelligence and the knowledge that every human is part of nature and therefore sacred.

Some of us are sick of the groupthink that's everywhere now too, but that doesn't mean religion itself is inherently flawed. Just the extreme ones we're seeing a lot of at the moment.

After 9/11 I don't think I can take much more religion.You don't have to be crazy to expect to be rewarded with 72 virgins for such unbelievable savagery.You just have to be seriously religious,
then you can be made to do really stupid things,for good or evil.Depends on your religion.
Enough already.The groupthink is stifling.

I would vote for the candidate who says "My religion is none of your damned business and please keep yours to yourself."
By the way you geniuses, the Koran is Islam's Koran and the Bible is Islam's Bible, look it up.

Daniel wrote "It is not just me who feels this way. All of the ususal commenters are weirdly mute."

Some of us are probably just waiting for the "This is a Christian nation founded on Christianity!" nonsense to start before we pounce.

I'll just repost what I wrote in the Georgetown/On Faith blog entry about McCain...

There's a story in today's religion section about McCain stating in an interview that he'd prefer to have a Christian president, citing as his reason that only a Christian can best represent the Christian values on which the country was founded. Anyone either so blatantly disingenuous or so sadly ignorant about the disposition of our founding fathers towards Christianity should be automatically disqualified.

Most of the principle founders were Deists who didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, and many of them were quite hostile towards Christianity. We were founded on Enlightenment values informed by the likes of John Locke, not religious values. Propagating the Christian nation myth shows a blatant disregard for history or a callous disregard for honesty. What's worse, that McCain is either so uneducated not to know our history, that he'll say whatever he thinks will sound good to Christian voters even if it's untrue, or that he's a bigot? To think I used to actually respect the guy.

Seven years ago I would have said that it did not matter one wit about the religion of the President...after all the Constitution protected me as an American. Wrong. In 1999 Bush the compassionate conservative candidate went on the Today show and said my religion was not a "true" religion. He then went after stealing the election.

Because his beliefs are that there has to be a war in the Middle east and the Rapture has to happen so that Jesus comes again. We are at war...in the Middle East.

He has proven he is not my president...he is not any sane person's president. I now care what the beliefs are of the leader of this very powerful nation. It matters.People in his administration have laughted and slighted Pagan citizens, even those men and women that fought and died in wars, wars this country and this president sent them to.

While the republicans were nameing us as traitors for not supporting the war...and accusing us of not supporting the troops...Pagan military personnel were being kept from worshipping, being harrassed, and when they died could not lie under their own religious symbol. So much for supporting the troops.

Bush's religion says I should not be allowed to live. Tough I am here.

We should only vote for the one that will honor this oath...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Bush took this oath, he then bent, folded and mutilated the Constitution.

I would not vote for Romney, McCain, or any of the Republican candidates. They all have that blight of the far right. I do not care if a person has religion...just leave it out of the laws, the bed room and my conscious.

terra

Gaby says:

"It seems that in the last 5 years or so the country has become much more confrontational. (Or is it just me getting older?) It has become a "either you are with us or are against us" society."

Wake up. You've forgotten 9.11. Crazed Muslims flew hijacked planes into buildings killing themselves and many innocent Americans. They were screaming "allahu akbar". We are at war. And it was six years ago.

I don't see where "Jihadist" is either touting Islam or breast-beating about its excesses. (I sure don't see "Concerned" copping to the Crusades and the Inquisition either, oddly enough.)

It appears to me that "Jihadist" has a thoughtful, progressive outlook on Islam and world religions in general -- and what the dickens is wrong with that!

I do see posts that most would consider over-lengthy. But personally I'd rather see one long but thought-provoking post that goes deep, instead of a string of 20 superficial knee-jerk ones -- particularly ones whose sole intent is to bash other faiths.

It's also a very good thing for this blog to have the participation of others in the wide world beyond the shores of America. So I'm glad to see it happening.

Oh yes, and on the particular question of the day, I come down firmly on the side of Thomas Jefferson!

Yeah Susan,
politicians use anything to get elected,
it depresses me all the time how they use religion to
court the masses,most of whom believe in all kinds of nonsense,
not just religious nonsense.
I bet most of those who believe in a god also believe in UFO's,
astrology,fortune telling,
palmistry,numerology,ESP,witchcraft,
spiritualism,alien-abduction, magic,you name it.
If one accepts the supernatural as real,anything goes.
Gods,ghosts,leprechauns,devils and demons,not to mention
the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Peace Be Upon Him).
We are encouraged to believe all kinds of twaddle.
It's all part of our culture.
I blame religion,the church and mosques;
Hollywood must take a some of the blame too,
for making fantasy and the supernatural a "reality" in thousands of movies.
Nothing wrong with fantasy,as long as we know it's not real;
but films make believing so easy,and there's a ton of money in it.
I pray for the day (in a manner of speaking)when some future presidential candidate,stands up and says "I don't believe in a god,and I don't believe there's any such thing as the supernatural,and I think it's time we moved away from such primitive thinking"etc,etc.
What a pipe dream.

Well, Susan said everything that needs to be said - this might be a short blog!

McCain, very unfortunately is a man who has sold what character he had left down the pike in the futile hope of being president. I'm being rather severe here but he's compromised himself beyond the point of any credibility whatsoever, as Susan pointed out. Basically, he's a pitiful human and needs to be disregarded.

A beautiful distinction between Kennedy and Scalia as Catholics - there is simply no doubt as to who has more character, and therefore more moral intelligence - Scalia is the epitome of a dangerous man with skewed ideas in a high position, and we have too many of those today.

Leadership and whatever promotes the common good is the first order of business in any elected official, and certainly in a President of the USA as the leader of the free world - and if there must be religion (and there must, as we can plainly see by all of the current candidates pandering to whatever religious group they can find) I'd like a person of wide intelligence and great vision that understands religion in society but is not of a particular religious persuasion (a function of the intelligence) -now that would take another Thomas Jefferson and we're not going to get another like that.

Clearly, we're just going to have to do the best we can with what we've got - maybe if Jimmie Carter gets back from Darfur alive we can ask his opinion, as a man of great character, intelligence and courage.

Ahh, more "Islamic yackety-yak" from The Jihadist.

And again she fails to come to grips with the flaws of Islam.

Daniel,

Hello again. I thought I'd have some small times cheap thrills in reading reactions from both irate atheists and non-Muslim believers if I throw in a one liner, - "Islam is perfect, convert to Islam" and leave it at that. LOL

But instead, how about some more random, very simple and obvious points to confuse you further. Or for you to take apart with relish. Hope you don't forget that I'm not an American too. Lest anyone want to make an issue of my being not a Christian or American, pause to think that a Frenchman is as alien to an American as a Moroccon Muslim is for a Malaysian Muslim - in language, culture, history, dressing, cuisine. So, I'm never ever surprised if any westerner says he or she don't understand me. I still don't understand some of my fellow Indonesians and Malaysians in spite of being culturally and religiously similar. Nor do they understand me either sometimes. So, some random points:

(a) Belief in God may be a delusion for those who don't believe in such supernatural concepts, but such beliefs and the existence of various religious faiths is a reality that cannot be wished away, but addressed and managed in the best way possible at the personal level and in the public square. God the Invisible, the All Present, the All Mighty, doesn't ever go away for both believers and non-believers.

(b) For believers, God is a reality, an Entity, a Supreme Being that exist. For non-believers, God is, perhaps, the greatest and most ultimate invention by man. But what an invention to contain the excess of men, and when man-made laws goes to the dogs, goes to hell when abused by men. We can say that God is both the Ultimate Rebel Leader and/or the Ultimate Establishment Leader. Depends on who is abusing and using God for their cause.

(b) Tenets of faith and beliefs is not enough to temper excess of human nature and human bad behavior. Nor is it enough to address increasingly complex temporal affairs. When it comes to faith, even Buddhism, the most pacifist by the estimation and opinion of many, cannot contain human nature. In spite of Buddhism and being Buddhists, don't stop the historical kingdoms of Burma, Indochina and Thailand from waging wars and committing atrocities. As they do now. Again, the obvious, not the faith, but the adherents who are personally crazy, delusional, power grabbing, greedy, moronic etc who cause so much grief on fellow men. Any given tyrants and despots comes to mind from Pinochet to Stalin to Pol Pot. What they personally believe in, whether they have faith or otherwise, is irrelevant in their personality.

(c) McCain is being realistic and rightly prudent in stating preference for a candidate with a strong background in Christianity - the faith of the majority of Americans. He knows what makes Christians tick and American Christians would not be second-guessing a Christian President too much perhaps. Better a Catholic or Baptist President rather than a Mormon or a Muslim for many Americans and McCain recognise that fact. No good having, say, an American Muslim President initiating a peace plan in the Middle East when some 70% of Americans (according to a recent Pew polls) saying they have nothing in common with Muslims. Not to mention the level of mistrust and misunderstanding are so high. Besides, it will never happen, so rest easy on that.

(d) Best to pursue and ensue seperation of church and state as stated in our coutries' respective Constitutions to guaranteee freedom of belief and religion for all and faith or religion be a matter for individuals and not state to impose.

After all, except for Northeast Asia (China, Japan, Korea) all countries and societies in the world are increasingly multiethnic and multireligious. Being even of the same faith is not a guarantee of love, peace and understanding. Just ask an African-American Baptist. Or being of the same ethnic group and faith, but with slight variations of beliefs. Just ask an Iraqi Sunni or Shiite. Ethnicity and religious variations much less different tenets of faith still matters for some people and can be combustible when politics comes into the mix highligting and exploiting the differences as "us vs. them".

(d) We ask for ask for equal rights for gender and for race. We want equal opportunity for all regardless of race, religion and gender. Equal rights and opportunity for one in spite of one's race and gender is a spotty achievement, but still pursued and guaranteed by law in many countries. So, why should equal rights for faith be any different? It is going to be equal rights for all faith in the public square and public policy? Or, it is to be no primacy of any faith in the public square and public policy to be equally fair to all faiths? Stringent seperation of church and state would ensue the latter hopefully, and lessen inter-religious animosity brought about by perceived and real partiality to a specific religious faith or denomination by the state.

I really should not be reading On Faith now, but sometimes a believer wants to have fun too. No one ever said sharing and throwing out perceptions and views can't be fun to see what one can learn from others and about others. Unless one is easily rattled by differences in views. Or, one needs others to say what one wants to hear so one can be comfortable and be comforted.

Thank you and best regards
J

Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul

Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul

Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul Vote Ron Paul

America is changing, and I fear not for the better. It seems that in the last 5 years or so the country has become much more confrontational. (Or is it just me getting older?) It has become a "either you are with us or are against us" society.

I can not imagine that European voters would give a hoot what religion a candidate is. Religion belongs in ones private life, not in ones public life.

I sometimes feel we are like hyenas who want to devour our elected officials and/or candidates, skin, bones and all. We pry into every little aspect of their private lives, their bedrooms, their religions, their families, etc. Nothing is sacred anymore.

Rather than focusing on the religion of a candidate, maybe we should focus on past accomplishments, their views on the state of the nation, their ability to be tactful diplomats, etc., instead of their personal relationships with whatever god they worship.

Anon: If you think the 'Christian Right' and 'Democracy' mix any better, you're very mistaken.

Democracy and Sharia's Law don't mix!!! Sorry...

I read Jihadist's comment, and I couldn't make much sense of it, except that it was very long.

This is not a very good question. Who cares what McCain thinks on religion? At one time, I liked him a little, but he has gradually crumbled before my eyes.

What does the opinions of a losing Repbulican Presidential candidate have to do with anyting, and why should anyone care?

It is not just me who feels this way. All of the ususal commenters are weirdly mute.

Lets stop *empty words*

American *world famous* singer Beyonce has been refused to visit Malasia(islamofascist country)

-Tell me,*Fast Police*(islamic SS units)
-Tell me,*compulsion* on people to put their money at so-called *Shariabank*(islamic bank)
-Tell me,*headscarf compulsion* on *mouse face* malay women,not *tales*.
-Tell me,*Article 11*,not *Cinderella tales*

McCain's comments came up just as I randomly found some quotes by Thomas Jefferson:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the 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."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

All of which make Jefferson a bit of a dude, really.

The Jihadist returns and again still has not come to grips with the flaws of Islam.

And with the koran as their bible, who would ever vote for a Muslim??????

I happen to admire and share Ms Jacoby's thoughts on this matter.

Jihadist, even though it is sort of hijacking the thread, also makes good points that I can affirm.

Peace,
RT, who is a Christian

A friend ask me to read a couple of essays here in spite of this being Ramadan. This one by you, and the other by Richard Dawkins on his take re what Christopher Hitchens said on religion.

Have absolutely no idea on the readers' reaction in the thread to his essay, but some random observations anyway for both essays:

- Believers have a double glazing, double sword, double burden (depending on one's perspective) and parallel but sometimes contradictory strains on moral statements and actions - secular and whatever religious faith they adhere to, and religious injunctions they comply with.

- Believers also place emphasis on ethics and ethical statements and action, not just on moral ones. It is not enough for some religious types to place emphasis on personal values, ethics and ethical behavior on themself, but they expect to see it in others, demand it in others, and sometimes impose them on others.

- Candidates who recognise this are surely sly enough to annnounce to the world, "I pray regularly", or "I believe in God", or "I have faith in God", or "I am a Baptist". All these statements are shorthand indication to believers that they subscribe to and live by specific morals and ethics. No one ever said, "I believe in the Constitution", only, "I promise to uphold the Constitution". Big difference there.

- Believers of course will take the candidate not to be a gambler, alcoholic, womaniser/adulterer, rapist, peadophile, liar, cheater etc. Certainly, if one is not one of those, or all of those, one is thought of to be a moral and ethical person.

- We have yet to see any candidate for public office anywhere in the world that says he believe in or promise to uphold the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and be thought of as a moral and ethical person. Or to quote Asimov, Einstein, Epstein and be thought so too.

- After all, if one can avoid all those "sins" (a.ka. immoral and unethical behaviors) that can complicate one's life and the lives of those closest to one, surely one is seen to be able to manage one's life, display restraint and thoughtfulness etc, and can be entrusted with managing the city, county, state, nation as an elected official.

- Of course, if the elected official who said he is a believer, prays etc made and/or commit an immoral, unethical statement or action, naturally one would expect them to face the wrath of believers. We will pray for them to go to hell; demand for their resignation; vote them out of office; see that they be charged, judged and sent to jail. Whichever action, or all that is neccesary to get that evil, corrupt, lying, cheating, immoral, ammoral so-called God-believing and God-fearing scumbag who says he prayed too! May he rot in jail and hell for all eternity.

- So, let the candidates say what they want on what they believe in. They will be judge for it by believers who still comprime the most number of voters and taxpayers. Pandering to voters are easy and cheap. The cost of expectatations raised by the candidates themselves can be most expensive for himself and society.

------------------------------------------------

As for religion as the root of all evil, or is it now religion poisons everything apart from God is not Great and God is a Delusion? So, let us look at religion from the obvious and take a few cheap swipes at one faith or so-called religion without belief in God - Buddhism.

Obvous points, if repeated often enough must be true said one atheist poster:)

- Man, knowing how easily man can slip into his worst instincts and insecurities, need all the religious commandments not to do this and that. Or there be earthly punishement by divine-ordained kings and presidents. Or hell in the hereafter. A not very subtle point that even in death and after death, one's crimes and sins will catch up with one, that no one gets away - Judgement Day, fire and brimstone of hell!

- Secular laws may not be enough for some or many. It is constantly abused, or misused, or circumvented, or differently and unfairly applied. With secular laws, one only fear, if one do fear, of being caught by the law. It does not imbue any sense of morality or ethics in man. One only feels chastened if one gets caught, and what one does becomes public knowledge. If one has no conscience at all of course.

- Humanism, at its most basic, is the codification, or rather, the tabulation of code of conduct and behaviors that are already recognised by all faith - don't kill, don't lie, don't steal, etc. Without humanism as an idea or a philosophy for life, a believer can still go on living well and right as there are already state secular laws dealing with killing, stealing, lying etc. A believer of any faith do and can derive his morals, ethics and values not only from himself, but from the tenets of his belief and community of fellow believers without knowing anything on what the thinker-writers of humanism and secular humanism wrote.

- Man is never afraid of other men, nor trust themselves sometimes, or other men. Man will always need a third party, or a neutral third person, or a Supreme Being to temper his thoughts, personal behavior and interaction with other men. The best is the Supreme Being over the Supreme Human Being who wants to lord it over man against their will. Recall how the churches became places of sermons against the British during the American Independence War. How Catholic priests and nuns led Filipinos to overthrow the Marcos regime in the Philippines. How Muslim organisations, like Nadhatul Ulama, were instrumental in removing President Suharto of Indonesia. How Buddhist monks led the Burmese against the junta, but were brutally suppressed in the last few days.

- Leaders who mobilised their peoples to fight against domestic and foreign oppression or authoritarian regimes in using religion to fire up their people, recongise the potency of God, ethics and values found in religion. Perhaps that is one reason why all are anxious to ensure the seperation of church and state in the Constitutions of their newly independent country. After all, all the founding fathers of many states forged in the last 300 years are not from the uneducated masses they mobilised as cannon fodder, but the rich and educated fellows who has the most to gain in taking over political and economic power of those they replaced. Can't have the "little people" going against them now by invoking the primacy of God over them as rulers of states and men.

- Non-believers like to quote Buddhism as the best alternative for reasons many athiest and other believers stated. Perhaps, we should look closer at countries where Buddhists were and are the majorities, and where Buddhism imbue the cultures of countries and values of people. South Korea and Japan aside, authoritarian regimes last longer in such countries (North Korea and Burma). The worst atrocities against their own people in percentage of population (Pol Pot's Cambodia). The most morally ambiguous stance on moral, ethics and values (Cambodia and Thailand) on sex trade where even young daughters are sold by parents for sex as an occupation and source of income. Prostitution as an occupation between "consenting" adults and business exchange is something some atheists are amoral about and which disquiet moralistic believers.

- Atheism or secular humanism thrive best when a society is developed and well-off. In poor countries, atheism either easily morphed into autoritarianism and totalitarianism against believer unwilling to go along with the regimes, or autoritarians discover atheism as practical in controlling men and resources by forcing men to think them as the Supreme Ruler or Great Leader in place of the Supreme Being.

- If the Tibetans were Muslims, they'd be bleeding China with irritating battles against China's occupation till today. Ask India about those pesky and irritating Kashmiri Muslims. Buddhism is excellent when one is into meditating for personal enlightenment right up to foreign troops coming in and occupying one's lands. One can always resort to fiery self-immolation in protest. After all, one must not kill others, but to kill oneself for one's freedom.

- Did George Patton not said, "You don't win wars by dying for your country. You win wars by making the other bastard die for his country" or something like that. So, if one must die for one's country, beliefs or principles, one might as well take a few down with one too. So the insurgents and/or terrorists thinks. Surely as a believer, if I am in a foxhole with Norrie Hoyt and Maurie Beck, and a grenade comes in, I would throw myself on the grenade thinking I'll go to heaven with 72 virgins waiting for me (You got to ask Yoyo on the 72 virgins in heaven. The Qu'ran never specified the gender or numbers). At least I'll save Norrie Hoyt and Maurie Beck and be a martyr for them:).

All in a very long way to say the religious types can be quite committed, passionate, wilful in countering and checking the excessess and hubris of the Great Leaders, the Beloved Leaders of the world. No one ever said he will die for Ahmadenijab or Bush except for armies given orders to go into wars for their country, or for freedom and democracy etc.

People who say they will die for God, really and obviously means that they have no faith anymore in their leader and government of the day, and want to remove them by force. Or, just to irritate the authorities, or seek revenge, vengeance against their governments for this and that injustice, corruption, repression etc.

God is a higher authority than the weasel you want out. And the weasel can't compete with what hardcore anti-theists calls the "Invisible Friend" and the "Supernatural". No man can ever arrest, put in jail, torture or exile, an Invisible Supernatural One. Believers may be killed for their beliefs and actions, but God never dies, can never be caught. Easy to see why God remains the Supreme Being, the Almighty One and will always win in the minds of men who are not impressed nor fooled by mortal pretenders as supremos of states and men.

So, perhaps the religious types are the best guarantors of secular and democratic states in keeping it fair, just, moralistic and ethical by their actions and the reactions toward them.

Thank you and best regards
J