Good Thing He Doesn’t Follow the Polls!
No matter how bad George Bush’s poll numbers get, he can be glad that they’re better than that of the Almighty (God, that is, not John Kerry as he thinks of himself).
Because even though the President may face a low approval rating, at least folks acknowledge he exists, unlike the 42 percent of Americans who apparently doubt that about God.
Even worse, of those who apparently do believe He exists, there are differing opinions about whether He is a He, a She, or a member of the GLBT Community.
It’s funny to me that we’re described as a Christian nation, yet we can’t even seem to get a majority together over what gender God is, or if He is.
I tell you, it’s tough to put together a good American Taliban if you can’t get agreement on the basics.
No related posts.
Category: Gimme that Old Time Religion
Well we're not a Christian nation. That probably explains the polls.
We are a nation with a lot of Christians in it, as well as Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Zoroastrians, etc. etc.
That's how our founding fathers – like Thomas Jefferson, the Deist who had his own slim bible consisting solely of Jesus' words, and Benjamin Franklin who was a near-total agnostic – were smart enough to set it up.
I'm afraid that history, and the writings of the Founders themselves, don't actually back you up on this jim.
But that's really the point of this post. HIdden cleverly underneath the slight humor is the notion that we're not actually sliding toward a theocracy here in America.
Jimmie – By listening to the fundies, it is clear they are attempting to regulate our behavior in almost all cases. It never ceases to amaze me that folks who can't focus or control their own lives must seek to control mine (and yours). There was a phrase in the past which we could employ in this regard. Let me see if I remember it, Oh yeah, Mind Your Own Business!. Until your lives and communities are running perfect and smoothly – stay out of my life. There are so many critical areas where their energy and passion could be used – but they just want to tell you what is acceptable (to them). Religion is a personal and introverted philosophy – not one that needs to be pushed upon others. If you are so sure of your beliefs – good for you. Keep them to yourself unless someone invites you to share. God (or Jesus) should be your savior – not mine if i so choose and that does make me any better or worse than anyone else. I sorta look at it this way: We all know know it alls, people who have been everywhere and done everything. You know who I mean. If you feel the need to shout your beliefs or experiences to others, it tells me you have confidence and modesty issues. The louder you speak, the more we don't listen. Your passions should be your own quiet passions. No points are awarded for shoving your feelings down the throats of others.
Well, you don't have to have a majority of the population be Christians to have a theocracy. Having a majority of those in power willing to bend over backwards to appease fundamentalist Christians who represent about a third of the population, to have a theocracy.
From the Catholic Ency: Theocracy: A form of civil government in which God Himself is recognized as the head.
Another interpretation might be if you have an executive who honestly believes himself to be receiving direct instruction from God, not on the morals he should live by, but on the policies he should enact. For instance, if he believed God told him to preemptively invade a country, that might put us fairly close to a theocracy. Or that God had chosen Him to lead this country (which he must have, because a majority of the population in 2000 voted for the other guy).
Or you could make an argument that since his followers see him and his party as infalliable, they equate Bush and the GOP with God, thus, a theocracy. They're certainly not willing to hold him accountable for anything, even though unaccountability should be a right reserved for God alone.
If a small minority of the population (e.g,, Evangelicals) has more say in the Bush administration's agenda, policies and judicial appointments than other groups, then it wouldn't take a so-called majority to push us into a theocracy now, would it?
To quote Bill Moyers, "The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on. "
God is described as "pure spirit" in the bible. What exactly is being disputed in an argument about God's gender? It's not goin to be resolved by lookin between his/her legs- he/she doesn't have any.
RE: The sudries
42% Americans doubt about god?
Where did you pull this poll out off?……. A Kellog Corn Ships Bag?
I guess that means liberal secularists won. BOOYA!
Maybe the reason Americans can't get it together to decide what gender God is, is that God is not gendered at all. How could God possibly be either male or female?
Look on the bright side!
If christians really are a numerical minority again, it won't sound as silly when they complain about religious persecution.
Of course 42% of Americans don't believe in a mythological sock puppet sky-daddy. That is more than slightly psychotic behavior to believe in magical beings who rule the cosmos and control your life. It's laughable really.
I fully understand how you can convince young impressionable children. Hell, they're kids. But once one reaches the age when critical thinking is possible, it's wonder even 1% of sentient beings believe is an invisible super being who protects them. silly silly silly.
JIMMIE SAYS: Go easy on the bigotry, Luthor. Next time I start deleting comments.em>
Man, you guys really have no clue about the various Christian religions in general, nor about the alleged triumphs the religious bogeymen that make you tremble so badly have won.
Maybe you should get out and meet a few Christians. You know, for diversity's sake.
Point taken about the slight humor. But the historical record does indicate that Thomas Jefferson was what we would call a Deist. He never referred to himself as one specifically, perhaps because 'Deist' was something of a negative term in those days.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deis…
"Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary (1952) includes in the definition of Deist: "One who believes in God but denies supernatural revelation." There is no question Jefferson rejected the Bible as divine revelation and rejected the divinity of Jesus. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson's appeal was to the God of the Deist, "Nature's God," not specifically to the God of Christianity (see letter dated Sep. 14, 1813, to Jefferson from John Adams equating "Nature's God" with "the revelation from nature").
As President, Jefferson occasionally attended church services; but, he was not a communing member of any Christian church. Further, he refused to proclaim any national days of prayer or thanksgiving.
Jefferson says he was a "Materialist" (letter to Short, Apr. 13, 1820) and a "Unitarian" (letter to Waterhouse, Jan. 8, 1825). Jefferson rejected the Christian doctrine of the "Trinity" (letter to Derieux, Jul. 25, 1788), as well as the doctrine of an eternal Hell (letter to Van der Kemp, May 1, 1817). Further, Jefferson specifically named Joseph Priestly (English Unitarian who moved to America) and Conyers Middleton (English Deist) and said: "I rest on them … as the basis of my own faith" (letter to Adams, Aug. 22, 1813). "
It appears I did misspeak about Benjamin Franklin; I was remembering some of his quotes but not the context. He was more of a Deist also:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secul…
"[Franklin's] Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."
In an essay on "Toleration," Franklin wrote:
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England." "
"Man, you guys really have no clue about the various Christian religions in general, nor about the alleged triumphs the religious bogeymen that make you tremble so badly have won.
Maybe you should get out and meet a few Christians. You know, for diversity’s sake."
Is this your way of claiming that anyone that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant?
For the record, my grandfather was an ordained minister and I have three ministers in my immediate family. I was born, raised and churched in the heart of the bible belt. My family contains, among others, Baptists, Methodist, Lutherans and Holiness people. My ex was a Catholic. If that's not sufficient evidence of my "diversity", I'll add that I'm familiar with the works of John Calvin, Roger Williams, John Wesley, John Rousas Rushdoony, Gary North and Gary DeMar.
That out of the way, if you seriously doubt that there is a theocratic movement afoot in the US today, I respectfully suggest that it is you who need to educate yourself.
And yet, jim, Jefferson not only openly accomodated religious beliefs, he allowed churches to meet regularly in Federal government buildings. One famous anecdote tells how, just a couple days after he wrote the famous Danbury "separation" letter, he attended a church service held in the House of Representatives. He attended those services, which were presided over by several Protestant-religion ministers (though the Catholics were the rule for quite a long time), often while he was President.
In fact, services were routinely held in the House even after the Civil War. Not only did Jefferson attend them, so did James Madison and Aaron Burr.
Not only did Jefferson allow services to happen there, he allowed them to happen in other Federal buildings, including the Supreme Court building.
Jefferson did not name national days of feasting and celebration because he believed that doing so would lead to the belief that there was a "national church". He said as much in the Danbury letter. His apprehension was that one church would become a "national" institution much as the Anglican church had become in England.
I find it difficult to understand how such a concern would resonate among thinking people today considering that what most would call "Christian" is in fact a number of separate religions with separate beliefs and doctrines, some of which directly oppose each other. The truth is that there is no monolothic "Christian" religion.
Mr. Reeves – What I was saying is that far too many of the comments displayed ignorance, not mere disagreement. The last paragraph of your comment displays both.
Just speculating now for Jefferson's time, but I expect it's a bit different than now because of the greater influx of non-Christian religions.
Jefferson and Franklin's beliefs were already out of agreement with mainstream Christianity, in that he didn't believe Jesus was the divine son of God. Still they weren't actually bothered by Christianity, so long as one sect didn't have power over the others. So informal Christian displays and ceremonies that were in Government-related spaces weren't really a problem to them.
But in our modern day, there are many citizens belonging to religions that don't derive from Christianity at all. So for Christian symbolism to be publicly displayed in Government-related spaces, is bothersome to them.
As bothersome as would, say, a display honoring the Catholic Pope and ignoring all other sects, be bothersome and threatening to Jefferson and Franklin.
Just my take on it…
Jimie- Haven't commented in a while. I've been very busy.
Your comment to Mr. Reeves is a little out of line. It is not ignorant to suggest that there is a theocratic movement in the US today. The only question about it is the SIZE of the movement. Look up D. James Kennedy and his writings. Or how about Randall Terry and his followers? I spent two days in Turkey with Mr. Terry by chance. He made it very clear to me that he seaks an America where only his form of Christianity will be legal. Catholics will be jailed. Atheists will be killed. That's what he said, at least. Theocratic movements clearly exist. And it is not ignorant to say so. And the fact that there are separate forms of Christianity does not prevent one form from gaining control and imposing their will on other sects or other religions. A single sect wouldn't even need a majority if they are motivated or stealthy enough.
You are right to assume that that no one theocratic movement could take over the entire United States. But it could definately happen in some states in the south. You might think that the Supreme Court would intervene to prevent a state from imposing a state religion, but I'm not so sure. Justices Thomas and Scalia are already on the record stating that they believe the First Amendment does NOT apply to states. It is likely that Bush's two appointees feel the same way, as George was seeking candidates that thought like Scalia and Thomas but had no clear paper trail. Is there a fifth vote? Probably not. But there are two more years in Bush's term and Justice Stevens is 86 years old. In the event that Stevens dies or retires, a Southern Baptist theocracy in Alabama is not out of the question.
But the theocratic movements can gain a more subtle control without many people noticing. For instance, the majority of high school textbooks used nationwide are approved by the Texas Textbook Review Panel. Essentially, the textbook publishers know they must conform either to the Texas standards or the California standards to make a decent profit on a textbook. They are the biggest markets, so they drive the content. Other states simply buy either a California or Texas textbook. Because conservative Christians have made a concerted effort to dominate most state school boards, the Texas textbooks are chosen the most. To pass the Texas panel, a textbook must promote Christianity and be consistant with the King James Bible (their interpretation, of course). Evolution must be presented as a hokey theory and no new research can be mentioned. The textbooks must make it clear that America is a Christian nation. Any hint of concern for the environment must be eliminated. Essentially, the theocrats in Texas are using government funds to promote their version of Christianity in public schools without having to gain contol of the entire government. And because their state is so big, they are affecting other states as well.
"Mr. Reeves – What I was saying is that far too many of the comments displayed ignorance, not mere disagreement. The last paragraph of your comment displays both."
Since the paragraph you refer to is an opinion and a suggestion, it is difficult to see how you come to the conclusion that it is ignorant. Unless, of course, I have misunderstood your position and you in fact recognize that there is a theocratic movement in this country.
However, since you choose not to display your superior knowlege and reasoning , prefering to abuse the term "ignorance " as mere invective, readers will have to draw their own conclusions as to your reliability and sincerity.
Tom – It's good to see you back here again!
I'll grant that perhaps my comments were out of line and given that possibility, I do apologize.
I tend to get hot under the collar when folks run around screaming "theocracy" as they have since George Bush was elected President. To say that we're any closer today to a theocracy than we were ten years ago when Bill Clinton had a photo op on Sunday morning in church about once a month and Jimmy Carter was hailed for bringing his religious convictions to the White House is a ridiculous assertion and does demonstrate a large degree of ignorance.
Mr. Reeves was technically correct to say that there's "a" theocratic movement afoot in the US today. Then again, there's always been a theocratic movement afoot in the United States. That's not the issue of discussion and I doubt that Mr. Reeves would spend his precious time here making a pedantic point.
I dare say that it's possible that one could set up a theocratic state. The Constitution certainly says nothing to prevent it and so long as folks are not constraned to live there and have the ability to go elsewhere, I don't see any huge problem with it. I doubt you'd ever see it because of the nature of the various Christian religions in the US today. No Catholic is going to live under a Baptist theocracy and vice-versa. Add in Episcopals, Anglicans, Lutherans, Church of God, AME, Methodist, Pentecostal, Nazrene, Southern Baptist, Free Will Baptist, Fundamental Baptist (my preferred brew), and a dozen others and you begin to see the problem. The problems between those religions are not merely doctrinal but also standard-based. It's just not going to happen, even on the state level.
I'm not sure your analysis of Texas schoolbooks is entirely accurate, though. I've seen modern textbooks, even modern science textbooks. They're not as "fundie" as you say.
Nevertheless, we do have the democratic process that puts the brakes on the Theocracy Bogeyman. It's not something that's even remotely a worry of mine. I can't even begin to imagine how any serious-minded person could look at our nation today and think the "Christianists" or "American Taliban" or "fundies" are even capable of taking over, much less on the verge thereof.
Jimmie, one need not believe that a theocratic takeover of the US is imminent to consider such a movement a serious threat. As pointed out, the Federalist structure of the US allows the possibility of the imposition of religious authority on the local level. Our history is replete with instances where state and local ordinances have been imposed at the behest of religious interests. Certainly the imposition of Prohibition on a national level was in large part the result of religious activism.
But we need not go this far. Large segments of the citizenry today argue that their rights are already being impaired by movements animated by a theocratic world view. One need not agree with their position but it cannot be denied that the conflict exists.
More to the point, you seem to be arguing that such theocratic movements are irrelevant since they cannot succeed in imposing a full blown national theocracy. This elides the reality of the influence that such movements may exercise short of attaining absolute power.
If you admit that theocratic movements exist and that they seek to influence public policy according to their ideology, it is more than a little silly to describe those who point this out as ignorant. If you object to exagerated generalizations about the strength and potential of theocratic movements in the US, it ill suits you to engage in similar exageration when describing those who are concerned with opposing such movements.
Mr. Reeves, what I am saying is that your "serious threat" is illusory. You're making it up and part of that illusion is very recent and very overblown.
It is true that citizens argue today that some vague theocracy is imparing their rights. It is also true that their claims are highly exaggerated. No "theocratic" threat exists today that didn't exist in some form and often in greater strength. ten years ago, or twenty years ago, or two hundred years ago.
There is a natural tension in our Constitution between the vital aspects of the religious and the secular. It has always been there and, despite alarmists like John Cole and Andrew Sullivan and a sizeable chunk of the left-wing, it will always be there. It is a necessary engine that has driven this country to create a system of government where an individual can enjoy greater freedoms than anywhere else in the world.
Despite over two-hundred years of aborning "theocracies".
I wonder what you think, though, of the "theocratic movements" that pressed for emancipation and full human rights for slaves in the 1800s or full civil rights for every race in the 1960s. Those were far from secular movements. They used religion – the Bible, specifically – as their authority and preached their messages from the pulpits of churches. Which theocratic movements have you decided are worth running around and screaming about and which ones are benign?
I fully expected that you might bring up the abolitionists. The first time I heard that particular ploy was, in fact, over fifteen years ago from out the mouth of an "anti-abortion" activist who was spending weekends harassing clients going in and out of a local Women's clinic (yes, the clinic did provide abortion services as well as a full panopoly of other health services including pre-natal and post natal care.)
As canards go this one is particularly flimsy. It relies, first of all, on a bluring of what theocracy means and secondly, on eliding the fact that both sides of the slavery debate used religious arguments to buttress their positions. Indeed, the Baptist and Methodist Churchs split over the issue with the southern congregants of both denominations arguing that slavery was a God ordained, righteous institution. This is the historical origin of the Southern Baptist Church. The Methodists long ago healed this breach by becoming the United Methodist Church. My Grandfather was active in this movement despite opposition from his own superiors.
Thirdly, while religion was a profound influence on the Abolitionist movement, as it was on all politics in the US at that time, it was never the general or sole basis for the movement. Benjamin Franklin, one of the early exponents of abolition, based his opposition to slavery on his personal observation that the racial inferiority of Africans was, in fact, a myth. Slavery opponents such as Sec. of State Seward and Thadeus Stevens were hardly reknown for their religiousity. Nor was President Lincoln seen as a religiously motivated politician throughout his career. The fact that he was a member of no church was seen as a liability both before and after his election to the Presidency.
Returning to the question of what constitutes a theocratic movement, the most cursory examination of the abolitionist movement quickly reveals that it never advocated an agenda of replacing the entire body of civil law with biblical statutes, a position openly advocated by contemporary theocrats such as Rushdoony, DeMar and their fellow travelers. Perhaps of greater significance is the fact that the abolitionists, both religious and non religious, far from seeking to impose laws on religious practice, were instead seeking to liberate a huge mass of humanity from the oppression of unjust laws. It was the erstwhile Christians in the camp of slavery who sought to provide religious justifications for the legal enslavement and exploitation of men, women and children from womb to tomb.
I don't think either of these groups truly qualifies for the label "theocratic" but I think it rather clear which of them falls closer to that definition and it is not the abolitionists. One might as well argue, as you appear to, that the Civil Rights movement was theocratic but to do so one would have to believe that any religious motivation in politics or public policy debates was ipso facto theocratic. That's certainly not my position. Is it yours?
To address your central thesis, the existence of a theocratic movement is hardly illusory. A surfeit of documentation for its reality exists both in the form of research by its opponents and in the writings of its adherents. It is from the latter that I draw most of my knowlege of the movement as well as from personal experiences with some of its notables such as Randall Terry and Gary DeMar. I had occasion to publically debate Mr. DeMar on Sean Hannity's radio program in my local market prior to his cable TV apotheosis. It's worth noting that in those days Hannity acted as a reliable conduit for DeMar's propaganda. This was the same period when Hannity was calling for the forcible quarentining of known homosexuals on the pretext that AIDS could be transmited to innocent heterosexuals via mosquito bites.
If you are unaware of this vast body of documentation, both pro and con, I can only reiterate my earlier suggestion that you educate yourself.
If your point is that this movement is not a "serious" threat , I suppose that view is sustainable if you don't feel threatened and have no sympathy with those who are. If you are comfortable with the fact that the US House and Senate felt compelled to pass law, at the behest of such theocratic interests, that subverted the Judiciary and the legal process as well as traditional spousal rights and that the President, who couldn't be bothered to cut short his politiking to focus on the distruction of a major American City by natural disaster, felt it necessary that he rush back to Washington to sign such legislation pandering to theocratic power brokers, it's difficult to imagine what you would consider a "serious threat" to be.
This leaves aside the funneling of millions of tax dollars into organizations controlled by theocrats, the warping of Educational, Science and Health policy to suit them, not to mention the continuing covert attacks on domestic violence and domestic partnership laws and Public Education under the twin ploys of opposing Gay Marriage and promoting "Intelligent Design." There is nothing "vague" about this.
Obviously you don't consider any of this to be "serious." However, millions of US citizens do. Imitating an Ostrich will not make the conflict disappear.