BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Amos
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 06:19 PM

Frank:

In my experience -- and this is why the man makes me nervous -- that kind of powerful and sudden "saving" from the grips of dramatic tumult only works because it acts like a dam against the confusion and holds it at bay. Prior to this event B was trying to cure the tumult of confusion by drinking, which only stirred it up worse.

ALL the force and confusion of his confused anger and fear and uncertainty and not-understanding is waiting to eat him for breakfast just the other side of that dyke, which is wholly comprised of his decision to anchor the universe to his religious data. Shake that and the flood breaks through and he is lost, man. Because he didn't walk his way out of the confusion, he just grabbed him some stable data that would be acceptable, and held it back and suppressed it.

Good for him, of course. Except that is why he can't think much or ask many questions or examine things too closely. Because if he does he'll question his radical solution which holds everything at bay, and BAM....he'll be lost in confusion again and that is more pain than he could possibly handle.

It is not a strength, it is just a massive weakness temporarily made to hold still.

As such he is a walking liability and an accident waiting to happen, and not religious at all.


A

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 24 Aug 04 - 06:10 PM

One of the important facts i beiieve is to see how Bush got into religion in the first place. He had an alcohol problem, used coke (don't know how much) and was a mischievous frat boy until he found himself under the influence of a born-again preacher. His approach to religion is personal in that it keeps him out of trouble. It, in a way, could be said to be a kind of palliative or medicine for erratic behavior. This is characteristic of many of the born-again types who have substituted one narcotic for another.

The attitude therefore is that Bush believes he has been "saved" and thereby qualified to do a little preaching. His higher allegiance might be characterized as kind of personal attibution that gets easilly into the realm of arrogance. He attibutes his role of leadership as from God, a kind of divine dispensation which is common to the behavior of extreme evangelicals. We saw this in David koresh and Jim Jones. Then we see the demonizing. Secularists are at the top of the list. Then it's a short hop to "terrorists" and "traitors". It used to be "Communists".

Re: the military, there needs to be a "justification" for their role which is assigned in their view from a "higher power". Americanism gets mixed up with the notion of God in the same way as we perceive the Intifada of Hamas.

God and nationalism

The question of the social good of this view of religion is brought into question.

Here's the bottom line. No humility if the "true believers" of this kind of religious thinking consider themselves somehow more "Godly" than others.

The solution in my view is to understand the workings of the need for religion, how is gets subverted into a drug that cures bad behavior, ("opiate of the people") and how it can be restored to a better place, a concern for the betterment of society and development of conscience over guilt as an operating procedure. If a person is truly religious in my view, then, the Secularist has a place in the search for enlightenment and those views must be respected.

I saw the movie "Inherit the Wind" the other night and found it to be as alive today as it was when it was made.

I think one can be a Secularist and religious at the same time or be both and not belong to any church.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST,m
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 06:46 PM

Seems I might have said the wrong thing there.


"Hijack it back."

'If people have so much animosity and antipathy towards me . . .'.

I don't even KNOW you. Why do you think I have antipathy toward you, or animosity? One of us has to get the meds changed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 06:46 PM

GUEST, you are misconstruing several points here.

I did not say I would no longer express my opinion.   I most assuredly will, never doubt that! And I will respond if someone misquotes me or misinterprets what I say.

What I did say was that I would no longer respond to those who descend to rudeness and insults, or who engage in personal attacks. And you, sir or madam, are skating pretty close to the edge.

Apparently you did not read my post above very carefully. If you had, you would note that I said that I have no problem with GUESTs posting or starting threads. I only pointed out the obvious: the confusion that several people posting anonymously can precipitate, as is amply demonstrated above. I intended no personal attack against you, but for some reason, you seem to be interpreting it as such. I am not adding to the problem, as you claim. On the contrary, you seem to be the one raising the general tone of the hostility here.

The GUEST who started this thread seemed like a reasonable person. Somehow, I don't think that you are that same person (another illustration of what I said above). In fact, I'm beginning to think I might just know who you really are.

Time to shut down and return to reading The Closing of the Western Mind. There, Freeman lays out the discussion in a rational manner without the perpetual interruptions of philistines. And my wife, who works at the library, is bringing home the copy of Freethinkers that's being held for me. I'm looking forward to reading that also.

But it doesn't appear that there will be any rational discussion of it around here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 04:08 PM

And Don, thanks for contributing to the problem, instead of the solution to this whole stupid guest thing. Again. After saying you wouldn't do it ANYMORE. AGAIN.

Remember Don?

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 03:08 PM

Well, there we have it. I guess the "silly season" is going to be a long one this time around.

I was twitted once by a super-twit for presumably getting my philosophy from episodes of "Star Trek." What brought on this particular snipe was that I quoted the words of the Klingon messiah, Kahless. Worf expresses his disillusionment at learning that the person before him was not actually Kahless, but a clone of Kahless. Kahless (the clone) responds, "But if the words are true, what does it matter who says them?" I think both Plato and Aristotle would agree with that statement. Therefore:—

I have no problem at all with GUESTs posting or starting threads—with the exception of one quibble. Many a GUEST posts good stuff, ranging from cogent comments and provocative questions (provocative in the sense of stimulating thought and good discussion, as this thread started out to be), and now and then, even bits of wisdom. The reason for my quibble has manifested itself in this thread most graphically. The thread started out pretty well and then seems to have tanked. The problem is that one cannot tell which GUEST is which. One GUEST posts something that you want to respond to and another GUEST comes in and responds to your response in a manner you were not expecting, or there are a number of posts all attributed to GUEST that express a multiplicity of viewpoints, and you don't know if you're talking to two (or three, or four) different people—or one person with multiple-personality disorder. All too often it gets so chaotic that all you can do is mutter "p'TAHK!" (Klingon for "garbage!"—or worse), back out, and go to another thread—or go make a sandwich as I will soon be doing.

I can understand why some folks might want to remain anonymous (to say "If you aren't up to some kind of skullduggery, why won't you identify yourself?" is roughly the same as a McCarthyite or an Ashfordite saying "if you don't have anything to hide, then why should you object to my tapping your phone?") and I can respect that. But all too often, it does make for a great deal of confusion and renders a thread unworthy of continued attention.

This is not a prejudice on my part, or some kind of flame against GUESTs, it is merely an observation from about four years of experience on this forum.

'Nuff said. K'Plah!

Don Firth

P. S.: I shall look at the links above. It looks like some good stuff. I'll check back later.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 02:05 PM

That was sheer bloody minded arrogance shown by those who butted in and ruined a perfectly good discussion.

If you have a morbid aversion to anon guests, then IGNORE them. Not everyone thinks like you, and you are spoiling it for others.

We know your opinion. It isn't going to change diddley squat. Don't be so childish and disruptive.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 01:46 PM

whether you do or you don't, there will be plenty of discussions to enter, and most of the issues you raise will eventually BE raised...possibly by someone WITH an identity, real or anon.

C'est la vie....

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 01:04 PM

"Hijack it back."

If people have so much animosity and antipathy towards me because I choose to post anonymously that they constantly take out that animosity and antipathy on everyone in the forum in their blinkered attempts to...god only knows what it is they are trying to do to me, because after years of being on the receiving end of this abuse, I have no idea what their goal is...weeell...then that is what will happen.

And please, spare me the arguments that if I just posted with something in the "From" line I wouldn't be abused, I can tell you that is simply not true, because I've done that here too. I've never been a member, nor will I ever be. I have been both named and unnamed guest. The animosity and rancor has been the same with both. I also have observed for years now, how members abuse other members, so I know how ridiculous the suggestion is that "membership has it's benefits". Not around this place it doesn't, unless you consider being a member allows you almost complete carte blanche to abuse other posters a benefit.

I've done all the thread redemption work I'm willing to do in this place. I am not going to waste my time and energy on these silly sorts of petty power and control games any more. If people are going to hijack the thread, then they can have it. I'm done demeaning myself by stooping to that level, and going to battle with them over every single thread I try to post in. That is just a ridiculous control issue I want nothing to do with anymore.

C'est la guerre.

Subject: The Mad Mullah Test
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 12:55 PM

Bee-dubbya,

Glad to see that you also have discovered what I call the "Goebbels test".

In the environment in which I work, "European" is axiomatically considered to be A Good Thing, because it is associated with the outbreak of peace between France and Germany which led to the creation of the European Union. But sometimes people get carried away with their rhetoric, so my Goebbels test consists in taking any over-enthusiastic article or speech, substituting "German" for "European", imagining it originated in Germany in the 1930s and asking yourself if you're still comfortable with it.

It seems to me that the US today, particularly under present management, needs its own version of the Goebbels Test. Let's call it the "Mad Mullah Test". You take an utterance by one of your leaders, substitute "Allah" for "God", "Mullahs" for "Religious leaders" and "Mosques" for "Faith-based organisations/initiatives". Then you just imagine you're in Iran, not the US of A. It's quite edifying.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: PoppaGator
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 02:05 AM

When I was in Army basic training in 1972, we were informed of where and when Sunday services were available for personnel of various religions, but the drill sergeants did not strongly encourage attendance.

"If you wanna go see the Magic Show, it's at Buildling 801 at 0800 for Catholics or 0900 for Protestants."

Their terminology seemed to betray an attitude of little more than bemused tolerance for the church and the clergy.

In all seriousness, I have found this thread more than informative, and intend to put myself on the list for Jacoby's book at my library.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Amos
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 01:05 AM

I find it absolutely appalling that a member of the Supreme Court should be so insensitive to the history of his country that he should articulate a Divine Right of Kings policy in public or, for that matter, even THINK the bloody thought! Is Scalia so ill-educated, then, that he has no appreciation of the blood and treasure that was given up in order to undo that notion? Jesus H. Christ on a crutch!! The divine right of governments? Puhleeze.

Guest, thanks for a reasoned assessment,. I will be interested, if you can get this thread back on its original; track, to follow the discussion.

A

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Peace
Date: 23 Aug 04 - 12:02 AM

Hijack it back.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: mack/misophist
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 11:51 PM

Bee-dubya-ell asked why the military and American religiosity are combined. Having brown up in a military environment, perhaps I can help.

A. The majority of military careerists have always come from    conservative rural areas. The bases themselves tend to be in rural or semi-rural areas where progressives and liberals would be unwelcome. They also tend to get into the kind of trouble that shortens their military careers.

B. Many military careerists come from families with a history of military service.

C. In many ways, overt and covert, the military encourages religiosity. Example: When I was in boot camp, one either went to church or did extra duty. Extra church attendence was encouraged by being permitted.

D. In my experience, commanding officers often allow special access and priviliges to local clergy.

Twenty years in such an environment can make anybody into a religious conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 10:24 PM

Hey Don. As you can see by Guest 8:11's post, obnoxious anon guests follow anon guests like me around too.

If it ever becomes possible again to hold an uninterrupted conversation here at Mudcat, we'll have to compare notes on Jacoby's book.

Until that, I guess the jerks have successfully hijacked this thread too. Congratulations, you all do yourselves proud.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 09:12 PM

Hmm . . . I posted second, then guests came for dinner. Afterward, I checked in to see how the discussion was going.

Boy, that didn't last long!

Don Firth (I'm gonna go read my book--the one I mentioned above)

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 08:11 PM

Well I'm sorry to say that all the whining about whether I do or don't sign in is pissing me off, so with all due respect I'm out of here. I know plenty of other people who would welcome the discussion. Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 07:43 PM

Hey GUEST, I only asked why robomatic seems to think it inappropriate.

I thought it was fine that you posted anonymously. This is an interesting thread.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 06:56 PM

When someone makes the brash statement that "God is on my side", my retort to that person is " But are you on God's side"? The point of this being, it is not for man to make up the rules and then seek an endorsement from God, to justify them and force them down other peoples' throats. Rather, it is God who makes the rules and it is man's duty to follow them. This applies strictly to religion, not to the U.S. government which is based upon the secular laws of the constitution, and should not favor any one established religion over another. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 06:37 PM

GUEST...if mature consideration is your aim, YOU could post elsewhere "why I choose to be confusingly anonymous" and make links to it. I have no faith you would bother to answer in another thread. YOU chose to engage in a practice that is inherently rude & disruptive, and then you object when someone points it out.

I will say no more........

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 06:28 PM

Thanks, GUEST. That need to see "Americanism" as a religion is, possibly, even more dangerous than the desire to align America with God. I can almost forgive someone who says, "We're right because God is on our side," as being misled. But someone who says, "We're right because we're Americans and America is always right," is stuck in a solipsism and wearing blinders to boot. Just back the clock up about 65 years and substitute "Germany" for "America" and see if the picture looks familiar.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 06:27 PM

And finally, here is a good article on where we are at today from the Freethought Today website, titled "America 2004: What's at Stake".

It is actually an address by Eleanor Clift, who many will recognize as an establishment media talking head from her photo at the link. It is quite witty and thought-provoking.

And with all those links, I'll leave you all with some time to digest this.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 06:15 PM

robomatic, Ellenpoly, and BillD,

You are all, of course, free to voice your opinion on guests anywhere you please. But it certainly does seem that by doing so in this particular thread, you are engaging in the rude and disruptive behavior being complained about in at least a half dozen threads in the past week alone.

So, I will respectfully ask all three of you to please be polite, and take your concerns and opinions to a thread where they can be appropriately discussed and debated, rather than hijack this thread, which is in no way concerned with the posting habits of anonymous guests.

I thank you for your mature consideration in this matter.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 06:13 PM

I don't have time to read all of this now, but thanks for starting the thread. I'll trace it and catch up later.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 06:10 PM

I agree with robomatic, Ellenpoly....any person should use some name if they intend to carry on a debate over time. There ARE others who use "guest", and sometimes on the same thread.

Calling yourself Edgar or Rumplestiltslin would in no way compromise your anonymity, and it would help us keep the discussion straight...and get you LOTS more interesting replies. The name doesn't even need to indicate gender.

I can't decide whether it's excessive paranoia or just a distorted sense of values that makes some people feel that they can ignore common courtesy.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 06:08 PM

And here is an example of well meaning but ultimately very confused progressive Christians attempting to define their Christian values in an "Americanism" context, to counter the dominant Christian right values that equates militarism with Christian patriotism.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 05:55 PM

BWL, here are links to places I think explain the "ordinariness" of the mixing of militarism, religion, and patriotism in the minds of way too many Americans.

Military Weddings

Here is a group calling itself the American Center for Law and Justice that typifies the sort of American Christian religious patriotism that has so gripped the nation in the wake of 9/11 especially, but has it's roots in the Reagan doctrines, and Republican demonization of those who opposed the Vietnam war especially.

And here is an article I just found out googling, that I think explains it pretty succinctly the very question BWL raises:

"The Religious Character of American Patriotism"

The author says:

"(A)s Americans we do not belong to a single racial group, do not share the same religion, and are mostly relative newcomers to the national soil we inhabit...What is it, then, that binds us? The answer can be found in a set of ideals and myths pervading our national consciousness that has been growing for two centuries. Whether we admit it or not, even if we claim we are not religious, we frequently tend to operate according to the prophetic vision, dogmas, and rituals of a generally unacknowledged religious tradition. Our behavior belies this as we take pilgrimages to its shrines, view its relics, sing its songs, celebrate its holy days, show respect to its saints and martyrs, and respond to its symbols. The United States is indeed a religious nation, but its unifying religion is not Christianity or any other world faith -- not even "the religion of secular humanism," as has been claimed of late. It is instead a unique national belief system best called _Americanism_."

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 05:42 PM

Here's an alternate link to the same article in case it gets deleted:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_10103.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 05:09 PM

BWL, I'm still working on the premise, and it likely won't be fully formed for awhile yet, at least until I've read Jacoby's book I would think, to see what someone else who has given this a lot of thought, is thinking. But thanks for asking.

If you don't mind, I'll defer again to the book's author, and quote an op ed piece by her at Newsday.com from July (lead up to the Dem convention) on this subject. The link is broken, so I'm copying what she had to say from the cached copy of the article at google. And here is hoping Joe Offer doesn't catch me doing this and delete the sucker!

"Where politics shouldn't go"

BY SUSAN JACOBY
Susan Jacoby, author of the recently published "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, is director of the Center for Inquiry-Metro New York.

July 11, 2004


One of the most untouchable issues in American politics - and so far campaign 2004 has been no exception - is the damaging proposition, deliberately fostered by government leaders, that religious devotion and patriotism are inseparable.

This largely unexamined subject, which lay at the heart of the case challenging the recitation of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, scares Democrats to death.

Indeed, the question of whether God has really blessed America scared the Supreme Court so much that the justices chose to duck the issue entirely by declaring that the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, lacked standing because he did not have full custody of his daughter.

Democratic Party officials were privately delighted with the decision, because it relieved John Kerry - who, even though he is a Roman Catholic, has already been tarred with the scarlet "S" for secularist - of any obligation to take a stand on the case. But the pledge is only one symbol - though symbols are important in themselves - of a deeper and more damaging assumption, promulgated aggressively by the Bush administration, that the only true patriot is a religious patriot. The triumphalist melding of religion and patriotism that permeates much of American society not only undermines the American social contract at home but runs counter to U.S. interests throughout the world.

What could be more unseemly in the eyes of the world than trumpeting our oh-so-superior religious values at a time when the U.S. military is implicated in a general abuse of Iraqi prisoners that also incorporated specific insults to the Muslim faith. In Muslim culture, which does not even tolerate casual locker room nudity among men, forcing prisoners to strip naked and simulate homosexual acts is an even graver insult than it would be in other societies.

At home, the equation of religion and patriotism it exclusionary - whether it comes from top government leaders or teachers in elementary school classrooms. Not only atheists and agnostics, but religious believers who also cherish the separation of church and state, are being told that their convictions count for nothing in public life.

Like most Americans, I responded to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, with an immediate wave of anger and grief so powerful that it left no room for alienation.

Walking around my wounded New York, as the smoke from the ruins of the World Trade Center wafted the smell of death throughout the city, I drew consolation from the knowledge that others were feeling what I was feeling - sorrow, pain and rage, coupled with the futile but irrepressible longing to turn back the clock to the hour before bodies rained from a crystalline sky.

That soothing sense of unity was severed for me just three days later, when the president presided over an ecumenical prayer service in Washington's National Cathedral. Delivering an address indistinguishable from a sermon, replacing the language of civic virtue with the language of faith, the nation's chief executive might as well have been the Reverend Bush. Quoting a man who supposedly said at St. Patrick's Cathedral, "I pray to God to give us a sign that he's still here," the president went on to assure the public not only that God was still here but that he was personally looking out for America.

"God's signs," Bush declared, "are not always the ones we look for. We learn in tragedy that his purposes are not always our own ... Neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, can separate us from God's love. May he bless the souls of the departed, may he comfort our own, and may he always guide our country."

This adaptation of the famous passage from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans left out the evangelist's identification of Jesus Christ as God - an omission presumably made in deference to the Jewish and Muslim representatives sharing the pulpit with the president.

Bush would surely have been criticized, and rightly so, had he failed to invite representatives of non-Christian faiths to the ecumenical ceremony in memory of the victims of terrorism. But he felt perfectly free to ignore Americans who adhere to no religious faith, whose outlook is predominantly secular and who interpret history and tragedy as the work of man rather than God. There was no speaker who represented my views, no one to reject the notion of divine purpose at work in the slaughter of thousands and to proclaim the truth that grief, patriotism and outrage at injustice run just as deep in the secular as in the religious portion of the body politic.

According to a religious identification survey by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, more than 14 percent of Americans - a much larger minority than any non-Christian group - describe their outlook as "entirely or predominantly secular." There are more secular humanists than there are observant Jews or Muslims - but one would never know it from the makeup of supposedly ecumenical civic rituals that are ecumenical only for those who believe, to paraphrase Bush, that God is at the helm of our country.

Bush's very presence in the pulpit represented a significant departure from the behavior of other presidents in times of crisis. Franklin D. Roosevelt did not try to assuage the shock of Pearl Harbor by using an altar as the backdrop for his declaration of war and Abraham Lincoln, who steadfastly refused to join any church even though his political advisers urged him to do so, delivered the Gettysburg Address not from a sanctuary but on the battlefield where so many soldiers had given "the last full measure of devotion."

The merger of religion and patriotism is especially dangerous in wartime, because it leads naturally to the conclusion that God is on our side. And if God is on our side, it isn't hard to figure out who, with two little horns protruding from his head, is on the other side.

Last year, Army Lt. General William G. Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, explicitly told an audience of evangelical Christians that the war against terrorism was a battle against Satan. He also declared, as widely reported in the media, that he was able to defeat a Muslim warlord in Somalia because, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

Boykin deserved a public reprimand from his superiors for statements that should never be uttered by a military officer representing the U.S. government. Instead, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld laughed dismissively when asked about the comments at a press conference and accused reporters of being a "blood-thirsty" bunch.

It is not hard to imagine the impact of such comments not only in the Muslim world but in European nations, where both the public and government leaders are baffled and put off by the religious rhetoric coming from Washington.

Bush has spoken proudly, on many occasions, of America's religious liberties as one of the factors distinguishing the U.S. from radical Islamist states - but he does not respect those liberties, which flow from the separation of church and state, at home. Only last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee once again took up the nomination of one James Leon Holmes for a federal district judgeship. This is a man who, in a 2002 address to the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, proclaimed that "the final reunion of church and state will take place at the end of time, when Christ will claim definitive political power of all creation, inaugurating an entirely new society based on the supernatural."

What a great and welcome contribution it would be for John Kerry to step forward and proclaim a love of country based not on dreams of a supernatural Christian government but, as the Constitution's preamble asserts, on the authority of "We the People."

The framers knew what they were doing when they declined to write, "We the People under God." It is simply disgraceful that modern politicians run away from the noble secular heritage that they should embrace.

---

Joe Offer thinks this copy-paste follows the spirit of the law, if not the letter. It has to be way over one screen of text to catch my attention, and the ones that get deleted are usually cut/paste only, with no expression of the poster's personal opinion.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 04:52 PM

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 04:40 PM

I resent a GUEST starting a thread no matter how interesting, without either joining up or signing in in some way.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 04:16 PM

GUEST, would you care to expand a bit on your premise that Nowhere is the confluence of American patriotism and the Christian religion stronger than in the US military...? Not that I necessarilly disagree with your premise, but I'm sure many in the military would hold themselves up as shining examples of religious tolerance. They would point to the fact that there are chaplains to serve those of Catholic, Jewish and Muslim faiths as well as the Protestant majority. So, how can one say that the military has aligned itself with a Christian (and particularly fundamentalist Protestant) agenda? They would further point out that, in a combat situation, it doesn't matter what religious beliefs a soldier holds. The bonds of soldierhood presumably transcend religious differences. If an evangelical Pentecostal soldier gets gutshot by a sniper, it doesn't matter that the guy who pulls him to safety may be a Jew or a Muslim.

Personally, I don't buy the military's "party line" on religion any more than I do their official stance on racial or sexual equality. They pay lip service to the idea of all soldiers giving each other due respect regardless of race, religion or gender, but their actions and, particularly, their failure to act when transgressions occur, make it obvious that it's all just posturing. Ask ten black soldiers, or ten female soldiers, or ten Muslim or Jewish soldiers if they feel they were treated as equals with white Christian soldiers and nine out of ten will probably say "No".

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 04:04 PM

mack, I don't know why, but I can't get the blue clicky to create a link to the Beliefnet interview right now. But go to the "this episode" link I give above, and that article has link that does work. I'll try and create a link to it later.

I really think Jacoby is on to something with respect to this particular presidential race, and I think the grand themes of this are currently being played out in the Kerry vs Swift Boat Veterans for Truth passion play.

The merging in the 1980 presidential elections of fundamentalist Christians and right wing Republicans, resulted in the creation of the sort of Christian American patriotic militarism we are seeing played out today that does have it's roots in the culture wars of the 60s. Nothing defined the separation, the "who's who" in the US more in that era than one's position on the Vietnam war.

The culture wars of the 60s happened along the American secularist/American evangelical religious fault line, and what we are seeing right now in the Kerry vs VV passion play is that fissure between cultural traditions. It's looking a lot like the "Two Traditions" passion plays of Northern Ireland in the wake of the IRA ceasefire.

As Jacoby points out, the American secularists are leaderless. The American Religious Patriots have as their True Believer leader, the charismatic George Dubya. Kerry, although he has tried to maintain his secularist positions, has refused to be proudly secularist, and to take on the right wing religious patriotism zealots head on, which is what the nation NEEDS him to do.

Hell, even Clinton commented upon the wishy washiness of the Kerry campaign on The Daily Show recently.

And today's NY Times editorial on this whole sorry Swift Boat veterans mess chides the Democrats AND Republicans, by asking "why" was the Kerry campaign blindsided by this, and why was the McCain campaign blindsided by the same sorts of attacks in 2000, and why was Dukakis blindsided by the sorts of attacks in 1998 ad nauseum.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: mack/misophist
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 02:52 PM

May we have a link to the Beliefnet/Jacoby interview? I'd like to read the rest of it. There were a couple of surprises there.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 01:59 PM

I agree Don. One problem with our education system is that we don't teach the lineages of particular philosophical movements, hence the confusion we are seeing today in so many of the issues being debated in this presidential election.

Back in the thread I started in May, I also linked to an interview with Susan Jacoby at beliefnet, that I'd like to quote to give some even more specific context to this thread. Here are her responses to three questions I think it is important to consider here:

Beliefnet: What do you mean when you say the orthodox religious view?

Jacoby: I stress the orthodox or right wing religious view because I don't like it when people talk about religion versus secularism. What they really mean is a particular kind of religion versus secularism. The general press has a tendency to say religious as if all religions were alike and all religious believers had the same beliefs.

Beliefnet: What are the main battles ahead between secularists and the religious right?

Jacoby: First of all, I believe that this election is a battle between these groups. The religious right has a champion who is the president of the United States. This election is a battle about many things, but one of those things is between a secular view of public affairs, between people who believe in the separation of church and state, as secularists and freethinkers do, and people who don't. And the religious right does not believe in separation of church and state really. What they believe in is that their religious principles are the ones that ought to dominate government policy.

There are so many other issues. Will we depart from American tradition and provide tax support in the form of vouchers, for religious schools? Will we drain off support from public schools and provide support for schools operated by everyone from the Christian right to ultra-Orthodox Jews? Number two, will we push for laws to regulate people's private lives, such as gay marriage laws, in ways that are in accordance with the principles of the Christian right? Will we appoint judges--which is, I think, arguably the most important issue in this election--who don't believe that there should be any separation of church and state?

One of the more astonishing and dismaying public statements ever made was made by Antonin Scalia several years ago in an address about capital punishment to the University of Chicago Divinity School, which received very little publicity at the time, in which he said that God has the power of life and death and therefore governments, who derive their power from God, have the right to dispense life and death too. This is a horrifying thought. The idea of having judges who look to God for instructions in their decisions, not to "we the people," as our secular constitution says, it's a terrible idea. When you look to God for instruction, well everybody's God says something different to him. We can't decide government policy on the basis of people who think they have a pipeline to God.

Beliefnet: Let's turn to the history of secularism. How does this history fit into American religious history?

Jacoby: The secularist strain in American culture has been very strong since the beginning, but the nation's secular heritage is virtually unknown to people. A secular government was developed to protect the rights of religious minorities. Most Americans don't know that God is not mentioned in the Constitution. It was a coalition of religious Evangelicals and freethinkers or deists who joined together to get this ratified. And why did the Evangelicals want this then? Because they were a minority and they deeply feared government interference with religion. This Constitution basically placed the Episcopal Church, the established religion in the South before the Revolution, on a level playing field with all of the Evangelical Protestant denominations that were sprouting up. The effect of this was to enable them to proselytize for their own religion in ways that if there had been a union of established church and state they never would have been able to do. Ironically, it's the separation of church and state that has probably enabled religion to flourish throughout the 20th century in this country in ways that it doesn't in other developed nations.

The history of secularism is also the history of a certain kind of religion. One of the interesting things that happened in this country is, between roughly 1780 and 1825 in New England, more than half of all of the once orthodox Calvinist churches transformed into the much more liberal, Unitarian churches, a development the orthodox of the day hated as much as the religious right hates secularists today. In fact, they referred to Unitarians as infidels and atheists. But those people led to a transformation of American religion. They were influenced by freethought and freethinkers were influenced by them. And later on when evolution came along, this part of American Protestantism accommodated itself to evolutionism, as it had accommodated itself to Enlightenment thought in the 18th century.

Subject: RE: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 01:49 PM

Excellent topic for discussion. I have also risen close to the top of my library's hold list for the same book.

For a world view and historical background, not specifically of this topic, but of some of the philosophical errors that have brought us to this point, I highly recommend the book I am currently reading:   The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, by Charles Freeman, here.

In some of the reviews of this book, the reviewers miss an important point that Freeman makes, in fact, a major point: Greek philosophy is not one single body of thought, and should not be thought of as such as the reviewers seem to do. In what we now cavalierly toss into the same pot and call "Greek philosophy," there were two strongly opposing systems of thought. It was Aristotle versus Plato. Early on, Christianity did borrow heavily from Greek philosophy, but it borrowed from Plato rather than Aristotle. It was not until a thousand years later, with St. Thomas Aquinas, that Aristotle re-emerged, but in a highly distorted way. This whole Aristotle versus Plato schism accounts for such modern day conflicts as science and evolution versus Creationism. And this philosphical dichotomy, in turn, strongly influences American's current political climate.

Don Firth

Subject: BS: US Secularism, Patriotism & Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 04 - 01:00 PM

I have finally risen to #1 on my local library's list of patrons for this book [Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby], and hope to pick it up this week.

As some of you may recall, we discussed this subject after I started this thread back in May, after seeing an interview of the author on this episode of NOW with Bill Moyers.

I am starting a new thread here, because I think it would be interesting to discuss how this dynamic is being subsumed by other issues in the presidential race, most recently by the wholly relevant rearguing of the legitimacy of the Vietnam war, and the conduct of American military and civilian government personnel in the execution of that war.

Nowhere is the confluence of American patriotism and the Christian religion stronger than in the US military, IMO. So I wanted to inject this subject into the discussion of the differences between the parties and their candidates in this year's election in the expression of their patriotism, how it is and isn't "informed" (for a lack of a better word, although I know it sounds somewhat elitist and academic) by the traditions of American Christianity and American Secularism. I see this "holy war" as a very strong undercurrent to the battle being fought over Kerry's Vietnam service.

I also think that this battle is merely a way for the mainstream public debate over the legitimacy of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and especially, as a way to obfuscate the horrors of who and what our soldiers become when waging war--because the one thing neither party or candidate is willing to discuss openly is the legitimacy of that war, and ESPECIALLY the conduct of our soldiers there vis a vis things like the destruction of historic sites, the bombing of civilians, the attacks on the religious symbols and sites of the Shiites, and of course, the torture scandals.

Additionally, I feel that this subject Secularism vs Patriotism and the US Christian Religion, is probably the central issue driving the most important constitutional crises that have taken root in the US since the country's takeover by the Republican Right in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan.

I think it is certainly at the root of the debacle that is the US Patriot Act, with it's Christian vs Muslim undercurrents.