jump to navigation

Religious Fascism December 13, 2007

Posted by sel4592 in news, Politics, religion.
3 comments

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.  

Advertisements

Mitt is still spurring me on! December 9, 2007

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

One of the greatest minds in  American (world?) history, Thomas Jefferson, wrote the following, from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: 

“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” 

In his 1787 Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson stated:

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world…” 

Is it apparent to you that given Mitt’s (and Huckabee’s, Thompson’s…) statements that neither one of them are familiar with one of the principle framers of our constitution and form of government? As would-be president’s who espouse the virtues of America’s greatness, needn’t they be well versed in the people who made the laws that govern this country?Truthfully, I guess I am still pissed off by Mitt’s speech, and I know that it really isn’t that big a deal… after all, I am sure that what he stated should have been expected. But what really scares me is that a great number of the people of this country agree with his rhetoric that religion is supposed to be a part of the political process and part of the way this country is run. They really have no idea what the founding fathers said, did, or thought, or, what’s worse, don’t care, or what’s even worse, take what they said out of context and use it for their own agenda to elect leaders who tread all over the original intent of the truly great men who designed our form of government.

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.