Christianity is what's wrong with American politics.

‎"In only the last thirty years have we embraced religiosity as the qualifier for public office. It is in this short period that we have plummeted from the top of nearly every category of cultural and economic success to the bottom. Our country resembles Pakistan and Iran more than America in 1960, and the variable which looms largest is the enthusiastic inclusion and encouragement of Christianity as a governmental philosophy."

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. -- Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater wasn't just any old conservative. He wrote the book on conservativism. In the fifties and sixties, his influence on both conservative and libertarian politicians was the most direct and powerful cause of the resurgence of conservative politics in America. Current presidential candidate John McCain said of Goldwater, "He transformed the Republican Party from an Eastern elitist organization to the breeding ground for the election of Ronald Reagan."

The irony of this statement would be comical if it did not encompass such genuine human suffering. The current Republican party is arguably the most polarizing and elitist party in the history of American politics, and its goals are so bizarre that its platforms would be unrecognizable to many of the country's historic conservatives.

The lynchpin to the whole system is straight from Goldwater's prophetic vision. When the Republican party effectively merged with the Christian right, all hope of compromise, plurality, and negotiation disappeared from American politics. It is no trifle to say that divine mandate is the end of democracy. The current batch of Republican legislators has proven beyond any and every doubt that nothing short of their vision is acceptable. Anything -- anything at all -- which deviates from it in the slightest will be fillibustered, voted down, or not even allowed to come to vote.

Defenders of Christianity will say that it is not the cause of this utter polarity, but theirs is a weak case. For anyone who has attempted to discuss religion with an average Christian, the relationship is clear. For all the talk of tolerance, love, and acceptance, the reality is that very few (if any) "True Believers(TM)" will even broach the subject of possibly being wrong about Jesus. No amount of evidence or reason will convince them that their religion is wrong.

Curiously... the Republican Christian legislators display precisely the same attitude towards economic and social issues. Show them the evidence that universal healthcare and welfare are beneficial -- to every single country that has them -- and they will cling all the more firmly to their conviction that it is an evil that must be forcibly destroyed. Show them the evidence that creating income disparity is the end of democracy in every historical case and they will vow to make it work anyway. Point to the other times in American history when groups as large as the "Occupy Movement" took to the streets, and they will be certain that this time, they can quell the mass uprising and maintain their power.

In no other time in our history has a political party been openly and unapologetically driven by not only the moral dictates of their religion, but the certainty that by virtue of their religious belief, they are always right. The words of our founding fathers are resounding condemnation of the union of Christianity and politics:

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." -- George Washington (From the Treaty of Tripoli).

"I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." -- Millard Fillmore

[L]eave the matter of religious teaching to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contribution. Keep church and state forever separate." -- Ulysses S. Grant

"I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this county in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government." -- Andrew Jackson (In his refusal to establish a national day of prayer).

"There is not a shadow of right on the general goverment to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject that I have warmly supported religious freedom." -- James Madison

"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be non-sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Interestingly, one of the most staunchly religious presidents, and one whose presidency coincided with the rise of the "New Evangelism" in America, was also one of the most staunchly against the merging of church and state. Jimmy Carter is and has been a Southern Baptist his whole life. If any denomination is the poster child for the New Republican Theocracy, it is the Southern Baptists. Even so, President Carter had this to say:

Last year I was on Pat Robertson's show, and we discussed our basic Christian faith - for instance, separation of church and state. It's contrary to my beliefs to try to exalt Christianity as having some sort of preferential status in the United States. That violates the Constitution. I'm not in favor of mandatory prayer in school or of using public funds to finance religious education." -- Jimmy Carter

There are many lists of quotations by Presidents in support of separation of church and state. By themselves, they are compelling reminders of the intentions of the founders and the attitudes of our statesmen. However, the lesson we must learn -- and soon -- is the real world danger of allowing the two to merge. Our history is filled with examples of Christian politicians who left their beliefs for hearth and home. In only the last thirty years have we embraced religiosity as the qualifier for public office. It is in this short period that we have plummeted from the top of nearly every category of cultural and economic success to the bottom. Our country resembles Pakistan and Iran more than America in 1960, and the variable which looms largest is the enthusiastic inclusion and encouragement of Christianity as a governmental philosophy.

What is the alternative? The same thing that it has always been. America has thrived as a nation with a clear boundary between religious beliefs and socio-economic policy. We must return to this gold standard. The mention of a candidate's religious beliefs must never sully the debates or TV ads. More importantly, even the hint a Christian ideal's inclusion in legislation must be regarded as approaching treason. Even more importantly, when the whining, bleating protests of "oppression" arise, we must continue to assure the religious that we have no qualms with their religion. They may bow to whatever idol they choose in the privacy of their church or home. They may teach their children any fairy tale creation story they wish. They may forbid their own children from marrying outside of the approved gender. We will protect their right to do so in exactly the same way we will protect our right to abstain from religious nuttery -- by removing every trace of it from our government, and treating as pariah anyone who would presume to reintroduce it.

Hear, hear!!!

A complete misrepresentation of facts and events. What has happened in the last thirty years is Christians are now reasserting themselves in the face of militant atheism that has insisted that Christians cannot worship in public spaces.

Christians are now reasserting themselves in the face of militant atheism that has insisted that Christians cannot worship in public spaces. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You can worship wherever you damn well please. Just keep it out of my face.

It's always about you isn't?

Great post Big Louie!

IB what makes an atheist militant? I am curious.. In my opinion people of any religion but most especially Christianity are more militant than any group I have ever encountered. They can waltz into my hospital room unannounced and get a free pass from the nursing staff to do so, because they are Christians, and the church is located right in the hospital so I have no say in the matter. I am forced as an atheist to have to tell them to leave, but not after they take up my time trying to "convert" me, or show just how offended they are when I tell them I am atheist and not interested in their "fake concern" and sales pitch propaganda. I am not comfortable with lying to my kids either, and I don't want other people trying to sales pitch "fairy tales" as truth to my kids in the schools either. I don't want to use a bible in a court room, nor do I want be treated like some hostile enemy because I ask for respect concerning my right not to particpate in religious events or prayers in public. I think prayers and religions should be practiced in your home not pushed on people in government or in public venues. We should never allow religion to be what we base our laws on. I don't care what religion it is, no laws based on religion please. This is and has shown to be very very dangerous, just go look at your history.

I could care less what the religion of a politician is so long as he isn't trying to implement laws or policies based on his religious beliefs or otherwise. I for one am damned tired of hearing religious people (especially fanatical ones) tout that we have to respect them, and put up with their nonsense.

So I guess this would make me a militant?

I have just as much right to speak out about the ridiculousness of believing in things that are not real.

By the way reading and loving Penn Jillette's book God, no! Best quote ever:

"Calling atheism a religion is like calling "not collecting stamps" a hobby."

Why do you want to worship in "public places"?

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Matthew 6:5 - 6 (KJV)

Is Santa Claus Ok?

Why do you want to worship in "public places"?

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Matthew 6:5 - 6 (KJV) Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Look who's posting the scriptures now.

I object!

Why do you want to worship in "public places"?

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Matthew 6:5 - 6 (KJV) Originally Posted by TexTushHog

There's a quote in the Bible to suit everybody's argument - even yours TTH. See how accommodating Christianity is; that even a professed atheist, such as yourself, can find words to fit his needs?

By the way reading and loving Penn Jillette's book God, no! Best quote ever:

"Calling atheism a religion is like calling "not collecting stamps" a hobby." Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

Collecting stamps is a hobby, not a belief system.

So I guess this would make me a militant?
Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

How about in the work place...

I won't tip unless you yell "Oh God".

Collecting stamps is a hobby, not a belief system. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I guess that funny little Penn quote went over your head..lol

Anyway.. this is exactly how I feel on this subject:

"It is reasonably common for religious persons and others to class Atheists as those that have a "belief" system. It is taken for granted that the Atheist's "belief" system is somewhat different from a "belief" in the supernatural and sundry. Proponents of such loose use of the language would wish to bring Atheists down to their level of accepting un-evidenced dogma. They then "reason" that it is far better to have a "belief" in that which has some perceived beneficial or "moral" good than that which is "godless" and therefore immoral. How very wrong, incorrect and opposite to the truth is that thought.


The Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary definition of "belief" is:


1. that which is believed; an accepted opinion.
2. conviction of the truth or reality of a thing, based upon grounds insufficient to afford positive knowledge


Most other Dictionaries tender similar definitions.
Those definitions are basically saying that a "belief" is not formed by critical scientific investigation but by emotions, feelings and unsubstantiated opinion.


As a child I can hold a "belief" that the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are real characters. I can have a "belief" that Unicorns exist and that Ghosts and Goblins etc. are also real.


As an adult I can hold a "belief" that any one of the numerous gods purported, do actually exist, and that humans have an immortal "soul". Some even have a "belief" in UFO's, the power of crystals and a myriad of other unproven paranormal activity.
Atheists do not accept that any of the above imaginary creatures or powers do exist as no scientific evidence is extant in support of those propositions. This is not a "belief", it is just lack of scientific evidence in their support.


The word "belief" has been incorporated as part of the religious language of ethereal nonsense with a design to confuse the faithful. Certain words have been with humanity since the beginning of time and have been refined in use to fool the unwary. "Belief" is one of them.


If religion was not evolutionary driven, with its majority acceptance "seen" as a herd benefit, then the word would not exist in its present form but would simply be a word or phrase that states that we do not know.
That which we do not know is our ignorance and seen in that light, a "belief" in the supernatural etc. is giving ignorance far greater credibility than reasoned thinking should permit.


Many so-called examples of our "beliefs" are thrown at the Atheist, but none come anywhere near being good explanations. For example, we have a "belief" the Sun will come up tomorrow. Forgotten, so it seems, is that by example of the Sun coming up every day for billions of years hence, shows a pattern that cannot be denied that it will come up again tomorrow. "Belief" has nothing to do with it.


Another is since we do not fully understand how electricity works, we somehow have a "belief" in the workings of electricity. It may not be fully understood but it is accepted that if a toaster is connected to it, the bread will cook. Again and so on and so forth, "belief" has naught to do with it.


If religions and such could do likewise and show by previous experience or experiment that some part of future action could be predicted, it would then no longer be a "belief" system.


If "belief" in the super-natural had some kind of quantifiable substance to it, then it would escape the realms of our acceptance of ignorance as a way of explaining the world.


The religious and others have a "belief" that ignorance is superior to empirical knowledge.
Atheist see no credible empirical or scientific evidence for the super-natural and therefore reject the notion as one only originating from our ignorance.


There is absolutely no similarity between the Atheist philosophical stance in life and that of the religious. Atheists accept only facts, whereas the religious et al find no need for them"


Author

David Nicholls

I guess that funny little Penn quote went over your head..lol

Anyway.. this is exactly how I feel on this subject:

"It is reasonably common for religious persons and others to class Atheists as those that have a "belief" system. It is taken for granted that the Atheist's "belief" system is somewhat different from a "belief" in the supernatural and sundry. Proponents of such loose use of the language would wish to bring Atheists down to their level of accepting un-evidenced dogma. They then "reason" that it is far better to have a "belief" in that which has some perceived beneficial or "moral" good than that which is "godless" and therefore immoral. How very wrong, incorrect and opposite to the truth is that thought.


The Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary definition of "belief" is:


1. that which is believed; an accepted opinion.
2. conviction of the truth or reality of a thing, based upon grounds insufficient to afford positive knowledge


Most other Dictionaries tender similar definitions.
Those definitions are basically saying that a "belief" is not formed by critical scientific investigation but by emotions, feelings and unsubstantiated opinion.


As a child I can hold a "belief" that the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are real characters. I can have a "belief" that Unicorns exist and that Ghosts and Goblins etc. are also real.


As an adult I can hold a "belief" that any one of the numerous gods purported, do actually exist, and that humans have an immortal "soul". Some even have a "belief" in UFO's, the power of crystals and a myriad of other unproven paranormal activity.
Atheists do not accept that any of the above imaginary creatures or powers do exist as no scientific evidence is extant in support of those propositions. This is not a "belief", it is just lack of scientific evidence in their support.


The word "belief" has been incorporated as part of the religious language of ethereal nonsense with a design to confuse the faithful. Certain words have been with humanity since the beginning of time and have been refined in use to fool the unwary. "Belief" is one of them.


If religion was not evolutionary driven, with its majority acceptance "seen" as a herd benefit, then the word would not exist in its present form but would simply be a word or phrase that states that we do not know.
That which we do not know is our ignorance and seen in that light, a "belief" in the supernatural etc. is giving ignorance far greater credibility than reasoned thinking should permit.


Many so-called examples of our "beliefs" are thrown at the Atheist, but none come anywhere near being good explanations. For example, we have a "belief" the Sun will come up tomorrow. Forgotten, so it seems, is that by example of the Sun coming up every day for billions of years hence, shows a pattern that cannot be denied that it will come up again tomorrow. "Belief" has nothing to do with it.


Another is since we do not fully understand how electricity works, we somehow have a "belief" in the workings of electricity. It may not be fully understood but it is accepted that if a toaster is connected to it, the bread will cook. Again and so on and so forth, "belief" has naught to do with it.


If religions and such could do likewise and show by previous experience or experiment that some part of future action could be predicted, it would then no longer be a "belief" system.


If "belief" in the super-natural had some kind of quantifiable substance to it, then it would escape the realms of our acceptance of ignorance as a way of explaining the world.


The religious and others have a "belief" that ignorance is superior to empirical knowledge.
Atheist see no credible empirical or scientific evidence for the super-natural and therefore reject the notion as one only originating from our ignorance.


There is absolutely no similarity between the Atheist philosophical stance in life and that of the religious. Atheists accept only facts, whereas the religious et al find no need for them"


Author

David Nicholls Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

You have just stated the "dogma" of your religion.

What most people seem to forget is that freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. As a non-believer, I still believe that someone of faith has the right to practice what they want where they want. I see the COEXIST bumper stickers everywhere, why can't the non-believers coexist with the believers? Sure there are those that believe that would push their faith, but that in no way means you have to disrespect their beliefs.

Why is it ok for some religions to be given special privileges over Christians? Or non-christians to push out someones beliefs. Who are you to tell anyone they cannot practice their given faith? Does their faith in public affect you in any way other than you don't want to see it? Does your non-belief affect them in any way?

I thought you leftists were supposed to be tolerant, why can't you just be polite and say, "no thank you?" All I see coming from the non-believers on the left is intolerance.

Those of you who believe that we should introduce Sharia Law also need to step back and really study it also. It is the embodiment of the union of gvmt and religion.