Well, I'm now I'm really confused.AlterNet / By David Sirota
The Wild Hypocrisy of America's
In Britain, the devout tend to be economic progressives. Why
have American Christians embraced social Darwinism?
April 20, 2012 | Here's a newspaper headline that might induce a disbelieving double take: "Christians 'More Likely to Be Leftwing' And Have Liberal Views on Immigration and Equality." Sounds too hard to believe, right? Well, it's true -- only not here in America, but in the United Kingdom.
Photo Credit: Jasmic
That headline, from London's Daily Mail, summed up the two-tiered conclusion of a new report from the British think tank Demos, which found that in England
1) "religious people are more active citizens (who) volunteer more, donate more to charity and are more likely to campaign on political issues" and
2) "religious people are more likely to be politically progressive (people who) put a greater value on equality than the non-religious, are more likely to be welcoming of immigrants as neighbors (and) more likely to put themselves on the left of the political spectrum."
These findings are important to America for two reasons.
First, they tell us that, contrary to evidence in the United States, the intersection of religion and politics doesn't have to be fraught with hypocrisy. Britain is a Christian-dominated country, and the Christian Bible is filled with liberal economic sentiment. It makes perfect sense, then, that the more devoutly loyal to that Bible one is, the more progressive one would be on economics.
That highlights the second reason this data is significant: the findings underscore an obvious contradiction in our own religious politics.
Here in the United States, those who self-identify as religious tend to be exactly the opposite of their British counterparts when it comes to politics. As the Pew Research Center recently discovered, "Most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party" and its ultra-conservative economic agenda. Summing up the situation, scholar Gregory Paul wrote in the Washington Post that many religious Christians in America simply ignore the Word and "proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated union busting, minimal taxes, especially for wealthy investors, and plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations."
The good news is that this may be starting to change. In recent years, for instance, Pew has found that younger evangelicals are less devoutly committed to the Republican Party and its Tea Party-inspired agenda than older evangelicals. Additionally, surveys show a near majority of evangelicals agree with liberals that the tax system is unfair and that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share. Meanwhile, the organization Faith in Public LIfe has highlighted new academic research showing that even in America there is growing "correlation between increased Bible reading and support for progressive views, including abolishing the death penalty, seeking economic justice, and reducing material consumption."
Of course, many Americans who cite Christianity to justify their economic conservatism may not have actually read the Bible. In that sense, religion has become more of a superficial brand rather than a distinct catechism, and brands can be easily manipulated by self-serving partisans and demagogues. To know that is to read the Sermon on the Mount and then marvel at how anyone still justifies right-wing beliefs by invoking Jesus.
No doubt, only a few generations ago, such a conflation of religion and right-wing economics would never fly in America. Whether William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" crusade or the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.'s poor people's campaign, religion and political activism used to meet squarely on the left -- where they naturally should.
Thus, the findings from Britain, a country similar to the United States, evoke our own history and potential. They remind us that such a congruent convergence of theology and political ideology is not some far-fetched fantasy -- it is still possible right here at home.
But, I guess in a way, it does make sense.
Also, most Christians in the UK, accept science education, and accept that the universe is about 13 billion years old, accept that the earth is 4.5 billions years old, and they also accept Darwin's Evolution.
It doesn't seem to be such a great big hairy deal to Christians in the UK as it does to a lot of American Christians.
Oddly enough, here in the USA, back in the late 1800s most Christians accepted that the earth could be hundreds of millions of years old, and that it probably was not created in literally 6 days, although they still rejected Darwin's evolution, they had no problem accepting the age of the earth being millions of years old.
These Christians were what we would call, Old Earth Creationists.
Also, in the movie, Reap The Whirlwind, which was about the Scopes Trial, or known as The Great Monkey Trial, back in the 1920s, in the movie, the actor who played William Jennings Bryan was wrongly depicted as a Young Earth Creationist, when in fact, he was an Old Earth Creationist.
He had no problem with the earth being millions of years old, and didn't take the 6 days of creation so literally. While he rejected Evolution, he still had no problem with the earth being millions of years old, so, he was an Old Earth Creationist.
But now, we have radical right-wing Christian Fundamentalist extremists in our Republican party who are hostile to science education, and wish to insert Creationism into school science text books.
These extremist are Young Earth Creationists, or called, YECs, in short terminology.
They are even more radical than the Old Earth Creationists back in the 1920s.
But hopefully, the younger generation of Evangelicals who are now in their 20s and30s will be somewhat more liberal than the older generation of Evangelicals.
One can only hope.
As for me, I'm not a Christian.
But, as far as I'm concerned, if future generations of Christians are less conservative, or more moderate, or more liberal, then, that's fine with me.
Of course, the more conservative Christians will naturally accuse the more liberal Christians of not being true Christians at all.
So, I see a future where Christians might be arguing among themselves as to who's a true Christian and who is not.
Hopefully, the more moderate or liberal Christians will just tell the right-wing radicals to . . . . .
Well, actually, more like BACK OFF!
But, you all know what I mean.
Well, here's another interesting article that asks, is there really a war against religion in the USA?
The answer may surprise you.
Well, it appears that religion actually has a highly privileged position in America, more rights than many secular organizations.Church & State Magazine / By Rob Boston
Right-Wing Religion's War on America
Many in America's Catholic leadership and on the evangelical
right claim there's a war on religion. In fact, they are waging
a war on individual liberties.
April 9, 2012 | From a posh residence in the heart of New York City that has been described as a â??mini-mansion,â? Cardinal Timothy Dolan is perhaps the most visible representative of an American church empire of 60 million adherents and vast financial holdings.
Photo Credit: AFP
Dolan and his fellow clergy move easily through the corridors of political power, courted by big-city mayors, governors and even presidents. In the halls of Congress, they are treated with a deference no secular lobbyist can match.
From humble origins in America, the church has risen to lofty heights marked by affluence, political influence and social respect. Yet, according to church officials, they are being increasingly persecuted, and their rights are under sustained attack.
The refrain has become commonplace: There is a â??war on religion.â? Faith is under assault. The administration of President Barack Obama has unleashed a bombardment on religion unlike anything ever seen.
The average American would be hard-pressed to see evidence of this â??war.â? Millions of people meet regularly in houses of worship. Whatâ??s more, those institutions are tax exempt. Many denominations participate in taxpayer-funded social service programs. Their clergy regularly speak out on the issues of the day. In the political arena, religious leaders are treated with great respect.
Furthermore, religious organizations often get special breaks that arenâ??t accorded to their secular counterparts. Houses of worship arenâ??t required to report their income to the Internal Revenue Service. They donâ??t have to apply for tax-exempt status; they receive it automatically as soon as they form. Religious entities are routinely exempted from employment laws, anti-discrimination measures and even routine health and safety inspections.
Unlike secular lobbies, religious groups that work with legislators on Capitol Hill donâ??t have to register with the federal government and are free from the stringent reporting requirements imposed on any group that seeks to influence legislation.
Religion in America would seem to be thriving in this â??hands-offâ? atmosphere, as evidenced by church attendance rates, which in the United States tend to be higher than any other Western nation. So where springs this â??war on religionâ? talk?
Twin dynamics, mutually related and interdependent, are likely at work. On one hand, some religious groups are upping their demands for even more exemptions from general laws. When these are not always extended, leaders of these groups scream about hostility toward religion and say they are being discriminated against. This catches the attention of right-wing political leaders, who toss gasoline on the rhetorical fires.
A textbook example of this occurred during the recent flap over coverage of contraceptives under the new health care reform. The law seeks to ensure a baseline of coverage for all Americans, and birth control is included. Insurance firms that contract with companies must make it available with no co-pays.
Houses of worship are exempt from this requirement. But religiously affiliated organizations, such as church-run hospitals, colleges and social service agencies, are dealt with differently. The insurance companies that serve them must make contraceptives available to the employees of these entities, but the religious agencies donâ??t have to pay for them directly.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) attacked this policy and insisted that it violates the churchâ??s right of conscience. Furthermore, the hierarchy insisted that all private employers should also have the right to deny any medical coverage that conflicts with their beliefs â?? no matter what the religious views of their employees.
The issue quickly became mired in partisan politics. Claims of a â??war on religionâ? expand on long-held Religious Right seasonal claims of an alleged â??war on Christmas.â? The assertions of yuletide hostility paid great dividends to the Religious Right. They boosted groupsâ?? fund-raising efforts and motivated some activists to get involved in politics.
Religious Right leaders and their allies in the Catholic hierarchy are hoping for a similar payoff through their claims of a war on religion.
With the economy improving, Republicans may be on the verge of losing a powerful piece of ammunition to use against Obama. The partyâ??s Religious Right faction is eager to push social issues to the front and center as a way of mobilizing the base.
Many political leaders are happy to parrot this line. For the time being, theyâ??ve latched on to the birth control issue as their leading example of this alleged war.
To hear these right-wing politicians tell it, asking a religiously affiliated institution that is heavily subsidized with taxpayer funds to allow an insurance company to provide birth control to those who want it is a great violation of â??religious liberty.â?
In mid February, House members went so far as to hold a hearing on the matter before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, stacking it with a bevy of religious leaders who oppose the rule on contraceptives. Among them was Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., who heads up a new Catholic lobbying effort on this and other social issues.
Americans United submitted testimony to the committee, but Republicans on the panel denied the Democratsâ?? request to hear testimony from Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School who supports the contraceptive mandate, thus leaving the panel stacked with religious figures â?? mostly men â?? who are hostile to contraceptives. (See â??No Fluke,â? April 2012 Church & State.)
The idea was to create the impression that the religious community â?? and by extension the American public â?? is up in arms over the regulation. In fact, the religious figures who spoke at the event were from ultra-conservative traditions that represent just one segment of religion in America. Many religious leaders and denominations support access to contraceptives, and several polls have shown support for the Obama administrationâ??s position hovering at around 65 percent. (Polls also show that many American Catholics disagree with the church hierarchy on this issue.)
This isnâ??t surprising in a country where use of contraceptives is widespread. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 98 percent of women who engage in sexual activity will use at least one artificial form of birth control at some point in their lives.
Contraceptives are also often prescribed for medical reasons, such as shrinking ovarian cysts or relieving menstrual pain. Americans respect religious liberty, but most believe it can be maintained while safeguarding access to needed medications.
Most Americans, in fact, understand the need to balance rights. Religious organizations have the right to believe and preach what they want, but their ability to rely on government to help them spread these views is necessarily limited.
In addition, valid social goals can override an overly broad definition of religious liberty. In some states, fundamentalist Christian parents have been ordered by courts to take their children to doctors. The theory is that a childâ??s right to live free of sickness and disease outweighs the parentsâ?? religious liberty concerns.
In addition, religious liberty has not traditionally been construed as license to trample on the rights of others.
â??People who cry moral indignation about government-mandated contraception coverage appear unwilling to concede that the exercise of their deeply held convictions might infringe on the rights of millions of people who are burdened by unplanned pregnancy or want to reduce abortion or would like to see their tax dollars committed to a different purpose,â? wrote Erika Christakis, an early childhood educator and administrator at Harvard College, on a Time magazine blog recently.
The courts have long recognized this need to balance rights. In the late 19th century, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down plural marriage, which was then practiced by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Mormon practice, the court held, was disruptive to society and had no roots in Western tradition; thus it could be banned.
In the modern era, the court devised a test whereby government could restrict religious liberty if it could demonstrate a â??compelling state interestâ? and that it had employed the â??least restrictive meansâ? to meets its goals.
That standard was tightened even further in 1990, when the Supreme Court handed down a decision in a case known as Employment Division v. Smith. The decision, written by arch-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, held that government has no obligation to exempt religious entities from â??neutralâ? laws that are â??generally applicable.â?
Since then, many religious groups have turned to the political process to win exemptions from the law. Generally speaking, theyâ??ve been very successful. In a ground-breaking 2006 New York Times series, the newspaper chronicled the various exemptions from the law granted to religious organizations covering areas like immigration, land use, employment regulations, safety inspections and others.
The Times reported that since 1989, â??more than 200 special arrangements, protections or exemptions for religious groups or their adherents were tucked into Congressional legislationâ?¦.â? The paper noted that other breaks â??have also been provided by a host of pivotal court decisions at the state and federal level, and by numerous rule changes in almost every department and agency of the executive branch.â?
But religious groups, like any other special interest, donâ??t get everything they want. On occasions when theyâ??ve failed, some religious organizations have been quick to complain that discrimination or a hostility toward religion did them in. In fact, political leaders might have simply concluded that certain demands of religious groups are not in the best interests of larger society.
Is there any evidence that Obama is stingier with exemptions than past administrations or that the president has it in for religious groups? Not really.
Under Obama, the â??faith-basedâ? initiative, an idea that goes back to the days of George W. Bush, has continued to flourish. Obama even stepped back from a vow he made while campaigning in 2008 to require religious groups that receive support from the taxpayer to drop discriminatory hiring policies.
Mother Jones magazine reported in February that if Obama is hostile to religion, he has an odd way of showing it.
â??But all the outrage about religious freedom has overshadowed a basic truth about the Obama administration: When it comes to religious organizations and their treatment by the federal government, the Obama administration has been extremely generous,â? reported Stephanie Mencimer for the magazine. â??Religious groups have benefited handsomely from Obamaâ??s stimulus package, budgets, and other policies. Under Obama, Catholic religious charities alone have received more than $650 million, according to a spokeswoman from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where much of the funding comes from.â?
Obamaâ??s Justice Department hasnâ??t always pleased religious conservatives, but it has hardly been hostile to faith. The department sided with the state of Arizona in defending at the Supreme Court a private school tax-credit scheme that overwhelmingly benefits religious schools, going so far as to assist with oral arguments before the justices. When a federal court struck down the National Day of Prayer as a church-state violation in 2010, the administration criticized the ruling and quickly filed an appeal.
â??If Obama is â??warringâ?? against religion, heâ??s doing it with a popgun and a rubber knife,â? Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, told The Washington Times recently. â??On core religious freedom issues, they have been moderate, to a faultâ?¦. Itâ??s not much of a war.â?
Other observers note that in a nation where the governmentâ??s regulatory touch over religiously affiliated institutions is exceedingly light, itâ??s hard to take claims of a war on religion seriously.
â??People who claim the government is hostile to religion are either insincere or uninformed,â? said Steven K. Green, director of the Center for Religion, Law and Democracy at Willamette University. â??Religious entities enjoy a host of benefits and advantages that their non-religous counterparts lack.
Green, who was legal director at Americans United during the 1990â??s, added, â??At the same time, many religious entities that enjoy exemptions from neutral regulations receive subsidies from the government for their operations. Rather than there being a â??war on religion,â?? the government surrendered its regulatory forces a long time ago.â?
Rob Boston is senior policy analyst at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Rob, who has worked at Americans United since 1987, also serves as assistant editor of AU's "Church & State" magazine. Rob is the author of three books: "Close Encounters with the Religious Right: Journeys into the Twilight Zone of Religion and Politics" (Prometheus Books, 2000); "The Most Dangerous Man in America? Pat Robertson and the Rise of the Christian Coalition" (Prometheus Books, 1996) and "Why the Religious Right Is Wrong About Separation of Church and State" (Prometheus Books, 1993; second edition, 2003).
Yeah! We're practically a theocracy right now as it is!
Oh gee! If science nerds and techno-geeks had been afforded the same amount of rights and privileges as religion, and high school jocks, and if American had embraced science education as much as religion, HELL, we would have found a cure for all cancers and diabetes, and we would probably have a Mars colony by now.
I happen to have the misfortune to live in a country where an 11 year old kid in the 5th grade can get his head bashed against a brick wall by a sports-obsessed teacher who doesn't want him checking out Astronomy books from the school library.
But, in the meantime, pulpit pounders and Bible bangers can preach out in the streets, and yell and scream in my face, and tell me I'm going to Hell if I don't believe in their fairy tales.
And yet, they all cry boo hoo, there's a war on religion!
Even Obama, a liberal Democrat falls on his ass for you sorry pricks, and doesn't have the balls enough to tell you idiots to FUCK OFF!
In fact, you religious zealots actually have more privileges under liberal administrations than under conservative administrations.
That's because we liberals are often much too tolerant, and sometime we wimp out!
But you all keep on crying boo hoo because you believe there is a war against religion, when in fact, there is not!
I just wish you right-wing cry-babies would just . . . . .
SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
Or rather . . . . .
SHUTETH THY FUCK UP!
Yeah! I mean fuck-tards like you Pat The Rat Robertson!
You can just go sit on top of a church steeple and shove it up your ass until it pokes out through the top of your pumpkin head.
SIT AND SPIN!!!