Does support, by many religious groups, of ignoring the Constitution's

[heidler1]

separation of church and state by Bush cause distrust of nearly all U.S. religious groups?

[arwalden]

1. Yes.

[Az]

2. Its interesting

It seems as long as there is a percieved threat from science, atheists, secularists, or any other social phenom that impacts dogmatic monotheistic positions they tend to group together to fight the common foe. But once that foe is vanquished or rendered impotent they turn on each other once again.

It almost seems as if as soon as the thing they want is nearly in their grasp the various denominations start arguing about who controls it.

The 10 commandments is a good example. Three major players have a different say on what they are. The Protestants, Catholics, and Jews all differ on what the actual decalog is. So as soon as the pesky atheists (and other supporters of the first ammendment) get swatted down they turn on each other as to what form of the big 10 to display.

I suspect that you will not be able to find that there is one single reaction to religious groups clawing at the constitution. Some are going to see it as a fight for righteousness. Others are going to see it as a degradation of our society. And there is going to be a multitude of positions in between.

[mestup]

5. I'd never really thought about that before.

Plus, there are factions within their own factions. The three major players have divide within themselves as far as more orthodox, or more liberal views.

Gosh, how fortunate they all are to have atheists and secularists to fight with. It's probably easier to fight about keeping "under God" in the Pledge, rather than deciding which God it should be.

Great post.

[More Than A Feeling]

7. For the ones who play this game, control is the point

They don't want to follow God, they want God to help THEM be in control! That's all they care about, the earthly part. They've got the afterlife covered. After all, haven't they accepted Christ? But they forget that the Bible claims that Jesus will tell some who cry "Lord, Lord", "I never knew you"

There's a name for that. Idolatry.

[madmom]

3. I never trusted them before....

organized religion is nothing more than a racket,they take peoples money, tell them how to live and what to think,and when the leaders are caught going against these teaching it's all okay cus god told them it was! If this is what religion is about I'm glad I'm not involved! My morals won't let me be so unethical or ignoble.

[onager]

4. Then there's that weird disconnect...

...that even a lot of mainstream and liberal religious groups seem to have.

They obviously don't want the Fundies completely bulldozing the Wall Of Separation.

OTOH, they join the Fundies in defending things like "under God" because "it's tradition" or "oh, that's just a little thing and doesn't matter much."

For those who missed it, when Judge Alfred Goodwin issued his Pledge ruling in 2002, EVERY member of the Senate stood on the Capitol steps and bellowed the words "under God" while reciting the POA.

As I ranted before, to me that was an absolutely shocking display of the religious majority bullying all minorities.

Which, IIRC, is exactly the reason we have a First Amendment--to defend the rights of the minority.

I don't really want to re-start the flame-wars over the Pledge, but the mindset completely baffles me.

BTW, Judge Goodwin is a Reagan appointee and lifelong conservative Republican. In his opinion, he noted that he was a combat veteran of WWII. He compared "under God" in the POA to the slogan he saw on the belt buckles of dead Nazi soldiers--"Gott Mit Uns" (God Is With Us).

[Az]

6. To this day

I still hear people shouting "Under God" and while it may be me just hearing it I sense there is a lot of hate and anger bottled up inside that shout rather than compassion.

It would be nice if people din't feel that way. But we can't make them like us. But we can insist that the constitution be followed.

[heidler1]

8. Herein lies the danger of Religion and why the separation is needed.

EVERY member of the Senate stood on the Capitol steps and bellowed the words "under God" while reciting the POA.

When Religion enters the stage even the Senate become sheep.

[Az]

9. It is frightening indeed

:scared: and as a wise shriviled muppet once said, fear leads to anger :grr:

[heidler1]

10. Bush used wrapping himself in religion

as part of the game plan in order to con the Senate and over 70% of the voters into his crusade in Iraq. When you are hyped on doing some fake great good deed your judgment is apt to be on holiday. Damn near every Democrat now thinks it was stupid, but with 70+ % a whole lot of Dems bought the con long enough for Bush to get it executed. It's time to see how Bush put it over on you and keep him or anyone from pulling that shit again.

[Old Mouse]

11. most mainstream religious leaders came out against Bush

and in support of the separation of church and state... its a two edged sword: If the church becomes state sanctioned, it loses the ability to effectively criticize the state.

[heidler1]

12. Which ones were in favor of removing "UNDER GOD" from the POA?

Which ones were in favor of removing the Ten Commandments from various public places? The ACLU was, which ones backed the ACLU? Which mainstream Church's congratulated the Supreme Court for agreeing with the ACLU?

[Old Mouse]

13. Most religious leaders have ignored this fight.

Its not really a religious issue, its a fascist one, and the promotion of its public debate is the real danger.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. You mean "shut up, the fascists might notice we're not with them?"

That's not a very good attitude, either for atheists or monotheists. Shouldn't we be loudly saying the fascists are perverting religion?

[Old Mouse]

16. I do not understand what you mean

Are you saying it is the responsibility of the pious to denounce those who misuse faith to validate their belief to those do do not have faith?

That faith is guilty until proven innocent? I think that is what you're saying, but I'm not sure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. I would think the pious would want to keep their religion unhijacked

for its own sake, not for the purpose of validating it to others. I certainly don't think it's something to do with 'guilty until proven innocent'.

Your said "the promotion of its public debate is the real danger" - to me, that seems to say "we mustn't talk about a fascist takeover of Christianity (or any religion which can claim 'God' as its own) and government" (presumably because you think it would lose Democrats votes). The fascist takeover of government, if it is that, is everyone's concern; religions ought to be concerned about their beliefs being stolen by fascists as well.

[Old Mouse]

19. Thanks for the clarification

I think the issue is a straw man. Drawn up to bait people on the left to attack the right, forcing both sides in to an uncompromising position on social issues that further divide and the nation.

I believe in compromise and negotiation. But the right is so angry its position is the one that does not allow for compromise. Let's metaphorically change the issue from religion to race: If you were to demand that I, as a black man denounce the actions of OJ Simpson just on the basis we were both black, it would be almost impossible for me to grant you the respect necessary for constructive conversation.

On these issues, it is the uncompromising attitude of the left that strengthen the right's resolve, which in turn becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for the left. Both sides are manipulated by parties that don't care about these issues in the slightest.

[trotsky]

15. And which ones came out against "faith-based" initiatives?

Clearly the worst attack on the wall of separation we've seen in recent history. Churches get gov't money and are allowed to discriminate against who they help (see the Salvation Army).

[heidler1]

18. To me Bush is trying to weaken public education by funneling money to

Religious groups and their lower paid teachers. Much like outsourcing other jobs thus lowering the number of people in the middle class. This will simultaneously give Bush and the Republicans a chance to indoctrinate the Religious with the view that the Republicans give and care more about Religion than the Democrats do. One objective is to convince the poor that Republicans care about them. Currently I believe that the poor tend to be mostly Democrats and for good reasons.

The Constitution should prevent this, but Bush thinks he can skate on it because the Church groups are only concerned about their own loss of power and not the destructive influence this will have on politics. Bush is only concerned about power gain for the Republicans. I would respect the Religion a lot more if they showed signs of wanting to protect the Constitution for its own sake.

[trotsky]

20. Bushco wants to weaken EVERYTHING associated with gov't.

They want to farm out charity to the churches, which are free to discriminate, and farm out just about everything else to private corps like Halliburton. Your right to services will then be dependent on just how "valuable" society thinks you are - the ultimate Republican wet dream.

[PassingFair]

21. Frightening. They will decide who they will help...

and who MAY do the helping.

:puke: