jump to navigation

Religious Fascism December 13, 2007

Posted by sel4592 in news, Politics, religion.

Ok, maybe I am diving off the deep end here, but I am becoming more of the opinion that this country may be on its way to becoming a fascist state.  At least that is what the insane christian right demagogues want.  According to the Oxford Dictionary:

fascism: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.  (In general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.  

 Its the second sentence that gets me.  This thoroughly defines the mind set of such wonderful loons like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and all of there insane followers.  My fear is that someone like Huckabee would be a tool for such religious fascists. As Sam Stein from the Huffington post stated this morning:

the Huckabee-Falwell relationship was more than just a mutually beneficial partnership. It was a shared political ethos. Both men saw a dominant role for faith in government. And while Falwell passed away this past spring (he was, Huckabee claimed “one of Christendom’s great leaders”) Huckabee has continued working to that end. Indeed, not since Pat Robertson sought the GOP nomination in 1988 has someone so emphatically religious been so close to the White House. 

 Am I wrong to have this fear?  Will our constitution protect us from such destructive nonsense?  Its hard to say since the present stupidity in the white house and many of those in congress now already try their hardest to walk all over the constitution.  


This might prove for some that there is a god! December 11, 2007

Posted by sel4592 in news, religion.

From BBC.co.uk

“Led Zeppelin return to the stage.”

Sure wish I could have been there!


That Mitt Thing. December 8, 2007

Posted by sel4592 in belief, Law, news, Politics, religion.
add a comment

I want to start this today by relaying a part of a conversation that I had yesterday with one of my students. We had been talking about belief (this was not a class related conversation as I teach technical theater-not theology!) and she made this simple statement:  

“I believe in God just like I believe in trees…” “But,” I said, “you don’t really believe in trees, because they exist-so you know trees are real.”  Long pause…”well, yeah, I suppose that’s right.”    

 This touches on what I think is a big problem with “believers” as they sometimes, simply don’t know the difference between belief and the reality of something that actually exists. Now, on to that Mitt thing that everyone is talking about this week: 

“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom,” Romney said. “Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”   

 Of course, I, like so many of you, find this statement derisive and troubling. I believe that freedom exists in this country because we have a constitution and a government that was designed to keep religion separate and secular. I also feel that both freedom and religion can and should exist separately. This statement by Romney points in reality to his desire to make our government a theocracy, and to trash the very system of government designed by the founding fathers of this government. He kept stating that he believes our founding fathers meant for religion to play an important part in the goverment of the country, yet (regardless of whether you believe they were theists, deists, or atheists), there is NO MENTION of God in the constitution and the first amendment, after all these years it is still pretty clear about a separation of church and state: 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”   

 In the preamble to the Constitution we are told that we are looking for the “blessings of liberty,” not the blessings of God(s). What does this have to do with my student’s statement about belief? I think that Romney does not know the difference about what he believes our constitution means and what it actually means. He wants the government to do one thing, based on his belief, but in reality it is designed to do the opposite. Lets look at another statement from Mitt:

 “Almost 50 years ago, another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president,” he said. “Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion.”   

 This is, of course a hypocritical lie, as in the above statement he is making a definition of his point based in belief, not in reality. If he believes that religion and freedom cannot exist apart, he is making a statement based in his belief-therefore he is in a way already defining his candidacy by his beliefs-therefore his religion. Romney states that “A person should not be elected because of his faith nor rejected because of his faith,” but if he is using his faith to determine his stance on one of the most important facets of our government-freedom-then is he not putting faith out there as a reason to elect him? What this comes down to is that Mitt Romney is a would-be mormon theocrat, who is trying to disguise his use of faith as a means to get votes.

Thanks to Jerry Springer…never thought I’d say that! December 5, 2007

Posted by sel4592 in atheism, news.
add a comment


According to the BBC, the British high court has upheld its ruling that the musical based in Jerry Springer’s talk show was not blasphemous.

“They said it was reasonable to conclude Jerry Springer – The Opera “in context” could not be considered as blasphemous, as it was not aimed at Christianity, but was a parody of the chat show genre.

In a statement issued following the ruling, the BBC said it had taken the the decision to broadcast Jerry Springer – The Opera after “the most careful consideration”.

“We believe the work, taken in its proper context, satirises and attacks exploitative chat shows and not the Christian religion. The court’s judgement today vindicates that decision in full,” it said.

“Today’s decision addresses the way the law of blasphemy applies to broadcasters, and the Court has found that criminal prosecutions for blasphemy should not be permitted in relation to broadcasts.”

This is an important decision in the defence of free speech. We, of course, believe that broadcasters should continue to exercise great care and sensitivity when dealing with potential religious offence, and that has not changed.” 

My only beef is how apologetically the court deals with it.  In a country that espouses free speech, who cares if something is meant to offend religion.  I am sure if it was attempting to offend atheists, there would not be such a big deal made of it.  At any rate, kudos for the high court and in a way, for Jerry Springer!

Ugh, Skin Cancer: Why did God do it me… December 4, 2007

Posted by sel4592 in news.

I had a skin cancer removed yesterday and now I have a 2″ long suture line on my temple. Once again, God proves his inability to do even the simplest thing-KEEPING ME PERFECT! Or are mutated cells simply the work of the devil? Maybe I should just drink more coffee because apparently Six cups of coffee a day could cut skin cancer risk by 30 per cent. OK, really, if the skin cancer mutation ever got picked up as a positive mutation by natural selection, what might be the end result? Any ideas?