Faith based (another political thread)

cantdog

Waybac machine
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Posts
10,791
Okay, we're off again, boys and girls! This time let's talk about Bush the mother fucking messiah.

My quote below is from a radio interview, the link to which is here.

Essentially, it's a discussion of the rather disturbing extent to which the current crop of nine or ten civilians have taken our government out of the hands of the people who used to run it, and have begun to direct it in a faith-oriented, messianic path.


from the rush transcript of the program:
AMY GOODMAN: As we continue on the issue of faith and the White House, with 13 days left until the voter goes to the polls in one of the most significant elections in U.S. history, President Bush and Senator John Kerry are intensifying their campaigning particularly in a handful of so-called swing states.

Concerns nationwide that voters may be intimidated from voting, and that a repeat of the 2000 elections may unfold. This campaign has been marked by extraordinary dirty tricks, personal attacks and smear campaigns, all against the backdrop of multiple U.S. occupations and U.S. military deaths rising every day. Both campaigns say they'll make the U.S. safer over the next four years.

But while Iraq and foreign policy dominate much of the public discussion on the elections, other key issues are at stake. The next president will have a major influence over the composition of the Supreme Court and laws governing a woman's right to choose, and it's this issue of abortion that is one of the lynchpins of the support President Bush receives from increasingly powerful right-wing evangelical Christian groups.

Much has been written about the significant role these groups have played in supporting the Bush campaign. President Bush has opened the doors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to right-wing Christian groups more than any other president in history. They're well-funded, well-organized, and well-connected. Today we're going to spend the hour taking an in-depth look at the role religion has played and is playing in the Bush presidency and election campaign. We're joined by Esther Kaplan, author of With God on Our Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House. Also Ron Suskind, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, author of The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill. His latest piece in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, a cover story called "Without a Doubt," which is about the role of faith in the Bush presidency.

But I first want to play an excerpt from the final presidential discussion at the University of Arizona -- discussion on October 13th when the candidates were asked by moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News about the role religion plays in their lives.

---------------------------debates quote:----
BOB SCHIEFFER: You were asked before the invasion or after the invasion of Iraq if you had checked with your dad. And I believe, I don't remember the quote exactly, but I believe you said you had checked with a higher authority. I would like to ask you, what part does your faith play on your policy decisions?

GEORGE W. BUSH: First, my faith plays a big part in my life. That's when I was answering that question, what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do. And my faith is a very – it’s very personal. I pray for strength. I pray for wisdom. I pray for troops in harm's way. I pray for my family. I pray for my little girls. But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to. If you’re a Christian or you’re Muslim, you’re equally an American. That's the great thing about America is the right to worship the way you see fit. Prayer in religion sustains me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency. I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, well how do you know? I said, I just feel it. Religion is an important part. I never want to impose my religion on anybody else, but when I make decisions, I stand on principle, and the principles are derived from what I am. I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself. That's manifested in public policy through the faith-based initiative where we’ve unleashed the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt. I believe that God wants everybody to be free -- that's what I believe, and that's one part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the almighty, and I cannot tell you how encouraged I am to see freedom on the march. So, my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me and religion is a part of me.
-----------------------end of debates quote-----

AMY GOODMAN: George Bush speaking at the final presidential discussion, Tempe, Arizona.

Meanwhile, a new documentary has just been released, and the producers, evangelical Christians, are billing it as an alternative to Fahrenheit 9/11. It’s called George W. Bush: Faith in the White House. It's produced by Grizzly Adams Productions. This is an excerpt.

----------------------Faith in the White House rolling:---
NARRATOR: Regardless of the political outcome, there have been a great many changes at the White House. The president encourages Bible study, opens meetings with prayer, and unabashedly references God in his public pronouncements. According to Newsweek magazine, “This presidency is the most resolutely faith-based in modern times -- an enterprise founded, supported and guided by trust in the temporal and spiritual power of God.” BBC correspondent Justin Webb reported that nobody in government spends more time on his knees than George W. Bush. The Bush administration hums to the sound of prayer. Prayer meetings take place day and night. It's not uncommon to see White House functionaries hurrying down corridors carrying Bibles. His example has brought about a national phenomenon called the presidential prayer team. The person responsible for that is Meagan Gillan, Director of Communication.

MEAGAN GILLAN: The presidential prayer team is the nationwide initiative whose sole goal it is to stimulate prayer for the president, his cabinet and other key leaders on his team. It exists in perpetuity, to support in prayer whoever occupies the Oval Office. In addition, we call our members to prayer for the members of our military who serve around the world, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. It spread like wildfire across the nation and before we knew it, we had 5,000, 10,000, some days as many as 28,000 people joining this effort to pray for the president. Today we're happy to say we have over 3 million participating, and some weeks we have over 10 million hits on the website. All are people inquiring about prayer.

NARRATOR: Prayer meetings and Bible reading sessions were and are still conducted in the various departments of government. They're not mandatory, but they're not held in secret either.
-------------------------end film excerpt-----

AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of the documentary that has now been distributed to hundreds of thousands of people around the country, called George W. Bush: Faith in the White House, produced by Grizzly Adams Productions.

Our guests again, Ron Suskind, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and Esther Kaplan, author of the new book With God on Their Side.

Esther Kaplan, let's stick to the issue of the meetings in the White House. I don't think most people are quite aware of this. Explain how they work.

ESTHER KAPLAN: Well, up until the war on terror and his morning terror briefings slightly disrupted his schedule John Ashcroft, for example, had daily prayer meetings in the Department of Justice. They were in his office, he led them.

So you can see how a young, ambitious person in the Department of Justice -- this would be really an invaluable chance to get some face time with the boss. So, part of the concern is not just that some government employees on their break, you know, want to pray. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. It's being organized by the top people in the White House, by the top guy in justice.

And so, it becomes this place where Christians who want to participate in this prayer have special access, arguably have a chance to advance their connections, their career, their power base within whatever department it is by participating in these prayer circles. There's a real question. And I think that particularly coming from the person, the top law enforcement official in this country, John Ashcroft, for him to be muddying that line between government service and prayer is tricky.

I want to just make a quick comment about that bit that you played from George Bush in the debates. I came across a column just – I guess it was from two days ago-- that Paul Weyrich, who was one of the founders of the Christian right. He's one of the guy who came to Jerry Falwell and said, let's found a moral majority in America. He kind of knitted together the movement. He's considered the father of the movement.

In a column on the right wing website, he[Paul Weyrich] claims credit for the fact that that question was asked by Bob Schieffer in the debate. He says, he wrote to Bob Schieffer, asked him to -- to ask the president about his faith, and as he says, to my shock and surprise, Bob Schieffer did ask the question. I was delighted with President Bush's reply. So, even a moment like that, there's -- there's a careful coordination with Christian right leadership.

AMY GOODMAN: Ron Suskind, are you surprised by that?

RON SUSKIND: Oh, no. Certainly not. There is a regular communication and ongoing sort of a shared support from the Christian right and the White House. I mean, you know the fact is, in some ways, it's -- it's something that we're familiar with on all sides of the political equation.

In this case, you know, the Christian right, you know, as John Dilulio said to me in the story that I wrote in Esquire in 2002, at the end of 2002, that created a bit of a stir -- he said you know, these guys are in and around the building.

You know, at one point, he got into a push and shove -- Dilulio did with Karl Rove. Dilulio was head of the faith-based initiative for this president through its first year, and basically Dilulio found out soon enough that he, as he said, that this was not about compassionate conservatism, but it was at least in large measure a mechanism, a vehicle, to fund and organize, direct the Christian right, using federal monies and White House organization, and support.

And in the push and shove with Karl, basically, he was being encouraged to go and make nice and offer his assistance to Jerry Falwell and others.

He said, I’m not going to do it.

Rove said back something to the nature of well, Jerry Falwell, well, those people don't have any real influence here.

And Dilulio says, is that why they’re here all the time?

I think this is part of the way this White House works. This is their core constituency. Think about Bill Clinton and his core constituency. Or George Bush the first or Ronald Reagan. The core constituency here, the energizing center of the base, are evangelical Christian conservatives. The conversations are minute to minute and every day.

AMY GOODMAN: You begin your piece, Ron, in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine, “Without a doubt,” “Bruce Bartlett, domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and treasury official for the first president Bush told me recently that, quote, ‘if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting November 3.’” Explain.

RON SUSKIND: What Bruce Bartlett was talking about and Republicans that I speak with are concerned about, you know, I -- I’m not pro-Bush or anti--Bush, I’m pro-fact. I'm a reporter. I try to talk to everyone I can. These days, especially after my book The Price of Loyalty came out, the main character Paul O'Neill, a locked-in republican, and virtually everyone in the book quoted as a republican. The book is out in paperback now with documents that O'Neill gave me in the back.

You know, what is interesting is after the book came out, democrats embraced it, but after a month or so republicans started to call.

Guys like Bruce Bartlett who served Ronald Reagan and George Bush the First, Roger Porter, the Harvard professor, who was domestic policy chief for the first President Bush. The comments were all similar.

This is our song. This is our story of prudence, pragmatism abroad, et cetera. There is growing concern among the community in the republican party that this president is in no way someone carrying forward of the familiar ideas, let's just say familiar ideas of the republican party.

And the battle, the civil war, is between the two constituencies that George Bush relies on, old guard republicans who are increasingly dispirited and faith-based core that the president is ever-more inclining toward.

You know, John Chafee, rather Lincoln Chafee, his son, the senator from Rhode Island said, said something very, very interesting in the story, again a republican -- he said the key to the election will be the president's effort to signal to the evangelical base that he is a messenger of God -- this is coming from a United States senator, a republican – and to do that carefully so that he does not upset voters in swing states.

The key to the election: signaling to the base that the president believes as many of them do, that he is actually a messenger of God.


AMY GOODMAN: Ron Suskind, we have to break for stations to identify themselves, and we'll be back. Ron Suskind, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, cover story of this past Sunday's New York Times Magazine, a piece called "Without a Doubt." Also joining us, Esther Kaplan, her book is called With God on Their Side.

AMY GOODMAN: Let's take a listen to that clip from the film that is now being distributed around the country about George W. Bush by evangelicals.

---------------------------------filmclip---------
GEORGE W. BUSH: When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as a savior, it changes your heart and changes your life.
--------------------------------end filmclip----

AMY GOODMAN: President Bush. We're joined by Ron Suskind and Esther Kaplan, both authors.

Ron Suskind, following up on the quote and the second quote of Bruce Bartlett in your New York Times piece this weekend, the domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and treasury official for the first President Bush, Bartlett says,

“Just in the past few months, I think a light has gone off for people who have spent time up close to Bush, that this instinct he is always talking about is this sort of weird messianic idea of what I thinks god has told him to do. This is why George w. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda,” Bartlett says, “and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes that you have to kill them all. They can’t be persuaded, that they're extremists driven by a dark vision. He understands them because he's just like them.” Your response.

RON SUSKIND: Well, it's certainly a quote that has had some legs in the last few days. What is Bruce Bartlett talking about there? Well, it's something that I think anyone who has studied human history, certainly in the modern era, is familiar with.

How extremism often breeds extremism, how radical ideas often are most drawn to the opposing radical idea. I think that what Bartlett fears and again, many Republicans and Democrats, this is in some ways not a partisan issue, they fear sort of a dance of extremism, a co-dependency of manner in which, you know, the clear-eyed and ideological views of the administration, of many in the administration, increasingly supported by this notion, as Bruce talks about, of a messianic faith.

It acts as a sort of destructive counterweight to the extremism that is occurring around the globe. You know, I think if you step back from the -- and look clearly at the global picture, what you find is a battle across the world between modernists and fundamentalists, between reason and religion, between the faith-based and reality-based communities. You find that in the Islamic world. You find it in much of the West. You certainly find it here in the United States.

And that is -- that's become certainly since this Times story came out something of a catch phrase, the struggle to help people understand part of what's happening here between the reality-based communities and the faith-based communities.

You know, this Bruce Bartlett would be in the reality-based community, a Republican. You know, I had a meeting with someone in the White House who said, I as a reporter am in the reality-based community, but there is a counterweight. The faith-based community.

AMY GOODMAN: Esther Kaplan, you talk about in your book, with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the increasing number of evangelicals or missionaries going out, specifically specialists in converting Muslims. Can you talk about that whole movement?

ESTHER KAPLAN: Well, this is a really interesting way, and there are many ways, in which Bush's foreign policy dovetails perfectly with the religious ambitions of the American evangelical movement. And there wasn't a huge focus among American evangelicals in converting Muslims until just the last five or ten years. But is has really picked up speed.

Now the obsession is something they called the “10-40 window.” This 10 degrees to 40 degrees north latitude.

And missionary operation after missionary operation are now focusing on this region. Evangelical colleges have opened up college majors in converting Muslims.

And the trick is in many Muslim countries, there are very strict laws against proselytizing. So, there was -- a great amount of excitement when the United States invaded Iraq, that this area that had been closed off to this 10-40 mission would now be opened, and huge amounts of money have been devoted to beginning to evangelize there.

Even while the invasion was still going on, even during major combat operations, there were already people in there distributing videos, distributing tracts, and trying to win converts basically with US guns at their back.


Despite the concerns of major religious Christian clergy on this, that this was really the wrong way to go about conversion, no one in the administration ever took a stance against it. And in fact, shortly after 9/11, I think it was in late November, Bush actually appeared in the Rose Garden with two Christian missionaries, who had been illegally trying to find Christian converts in Afghanistan. They had been imprisoned by the Taliban, because there was a law there against proselytizing, and he actually held a reception for them in the Rose Garden once they were released from custody, and claimed that was one of the reasons that he invaded Afghanistan was to secure their release.

AMY GOODMAN: There's also of course the story of Lieutenant General William Jerry Boykin, that did get some attention. Fiercely anti-Muslim remarks reported in the NBC Nightly News and Los Angeles Times, but you say, you first saw the videotape, which was distributed by Gary Bauer of the Family Research Council with a cover letter. Can you talk about that?

ESTHER KAPLAN: Well, sure.

Gary Bauer, James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, a lot of the key leaders on the Christian Right think of Jerry Boykin as a hero, akin to Judge Roy Moore in Alabama and his defense of his ten commandments monument in the state courthouse there.

Gary Bauer in particular in his email updates which I receive constantly sings the praises of Jerry Boykin and calls on his constituency to write the White House and defend him. In fact, Boykin has not been censured for these remarks. But, yeah, he --

AMY GOODMAN: He's the man who heads up the efforts to go after Osama bin Laden?

ESTHER KAPLAN: This is not a minor character. He is the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense.

He was the one charged with Saddam Hussein and finding Osama bin Laden. And, yeah, in this video, he stands up -- it's not that he made a slip of the tongue -- it's a well-rehearsed talk with slides and a whole presentation, and he says, number one, that George Bush was put by God in the White House. He asked why is he president if he lost the popular vote? Well, it's because God put him there, in his words, for “such a time as this.”

And he says that the war is a spiritual war against a spiritual enemy, and that enemy's name is Satan. Now these are common sentiments among Christian Right leaders.

Franklin Graham, who has often been a guest at the White House, who was the one who gave the benediction at Bush's inauguration, has said very similar things. He has called Islam an “evil religion.”

President Bush, when pushed again and again, has refused to distance himself from these remarks, to condemn remarks like this from people within his own administration or within, as Ron Suskind said, his most cherished constituency, the Christian Right movement.

AMY GOODMAN: An interesting quote of John Ashcroft saying “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.”

ESTHER KAPLAN: Right. This is a public speech, a scripted speech that Ashcroft made-- it was actually a radio interview. I apologize.

But he has since tried to claim that he was only talking about terrorists, but it's obvious from the quote that he is characterizing the religion as a whole. Of course, this is the same Attorney General who's really gone after Muslim charities in this country, cutting them off from their funds on often no evidence whatsoever, who's rounded up thousands of Muslims in this country for -- indeterminate detention.

So, it's troubling when you have the Attorney General, who is espousing these views, and then implementing policies that arguably punish Muslims.

AMY GOODMAN: Esther Kaplan, her book is With God on Their Side.

Ron Suskind, in your piece “Without a Doubt” you talk about the article that you wrote for Esquire magazine in the summer of 2002, and then a meeting you had at the White House that -- well, where you were talking about Bush's former communication director, Karen Hughes.

RON SUSKIND: Right. After the story, which the White House didn't like, even though I had a good bit of access to the West Wing and the White House and senior officials pretty much across the board, you know, after that, I had a couple of meetings in the months that followed.

And one of them was a meeting with someone who talked about the distinction between the reality-based community and ostensibly the faith-based community that -- that, you know, that -- me, you know, and the reality based community and people like you, Ron, you believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality and essentially that the world doesn't work that way anymore.

You know, it's about action, is essentially what the aide said. You know, we act, and we create new reality that you will judiciously study and you will act again and you can study that one, and that's the way it all will ultimately sort of sort out. We're history's actors and you will study what we do.

You know, by the same token, I think Esther’s point, which is interesting, is that the president simply doesn't do what other presidents have done in public, when these issues come up.

One of the scenes in the story that I wrote in the Times is very emblematic of this sort of omission.

The president is at one of his “ask President Bush sessions,” which are these carefully staged sessions that are taped with supporters who then, you know, seemingly in an impromptu fashion stand and ask him questions. One of the people stands up, I think it's in Destine, Florida, and says, I have been a Republican my whole life, but this is the first time that I know god is in the White House.

Now, most presidents -- I think all presidents of the modern era would at that moment say just hold on one minute -- a man is in the White House. None of us can know god's will. You know, I respect your opinion but let me be very clear -- et cetera.

This president, as he has done in countless ways throughout this season of consent, simply says, “Thank you. Thank you.” And the room erupts in applause.


That is essentially the way that the campaign of a faith-based president looks. As the president, you know, circles the country, the great tent revival, the big tent revival rallies for the president, you know, populated at least in significant measure in most states by the faith-based center of his base.

Remember, 42% of Americans now identify themselves as either evangelical or born-again. I think for those of us who live on the coasts, on the West Coast and East Coast, some -- this comes as something of a surprise. I know that readers have been sort of, you know, emailing me saying could that be true? Well, it is.

If you go out to the wide middle of the country, you will find that the ions are charged in a different way, and I think that part of the battle, some historians call the struggle between those in the coastline and the center of the country now, you know, as deep a cultural divide as there was before the Civil War.

AMY GOODMAN: Only a few seconds.

RON SUSKIND: That's part of the cultural war we're in at this moment.

AMY GOODMAN: Last question, and we only have a few seconds for your answer -- in your New York Times piece, you discuss a recent confidential luncheon in Washington where President Bush spoke with his long-time supporters about what's ahead for the second term -- in just a few seconds can you summarize what he responded?

RON SUSKIND: Yeah. The controversy from that luncheon, and I have notes that are sound as they can be, and it was confirmed by many people in the room, including some quoted in the story, the president said that he wants to burst out of the blocks after his swearing in, to bring -- to do fundamental tax reform, reform -- privatize social security, privatization is the word that’s the hot button word -- tort reform and the rest. I don't think anyone in the room would think that the president would change his position, even though there are folks that have advocated a more dramatic privatization than the president has publicly asserted.

AMY GOODMAN: On that note, we are going to have to leave it there. Ron Suskind and Esther Kaplan, I want to thank you for being with us.
 
I'm about to let out a deep secret of mine.

I've noticed the deep divide in America myself. It is as deep and wide as it was before the Civil War.

And I think it's going to have the same result.

Sorry, folks. I think your country is going to be walking a very tough road for a while.
 
If they must bring their god into politics, why must it always be the same god?

Never the GOD LOVE.

Always the GOD DAMN!
 
Then color my face painted.

Fundy theocracies are the problem, and I plan to paint this crowd bright fuckin yellow until someone notices.
 
I've voted Republican sine I was 18. When too young to vote, I was a volunteer at a Reagan campaign office. I've never voted for a democrat in my life, for any office, under any circumstances.

I'm very conservative fiscally and while my social views are more liberal, they are still no where to close to eventhe moderate in the democratic party.

I'm also a christian, Southern Baptist persuasion.

This will mark the first election ever where I am not voting republican. Part of that decision is based on the person of G.W.B. That part is only a minor part however. By and large, I am no longer supporting the GOP because they are mixing politics with religion.

It's a leathal combination. It has been for a long long time. While I firmly believe everyone has a right to their religion and Ihave never let aperson's religion or lack there of influence my vote, when that religion becomes a basis for your politics, I find that too scary to contemplate.

I would hate to see John Kerry win. He is personally, odious to me, but all that he brings negatively, seems less dangerous to my freedom than a president and party who can't see thier idea of religion isn't neccessarily mine, and would limit my freedom to exercise my religion by promoting theirs.

Faith based? It's a cheap catch phrase to hide the words Misogynistic, homophobic, repressive and hypocritical. Those words are not synonamous with faith, but they are synomamous with the brand of Religious politics these people are pushing on us all.

-Colly
 
That's where the commencement speaker at the Seminary, Dan Maguire (this thread) had the right idea. If you're a Christian, you know these bums have the wrong idea! They're making Christians look like intolerant, murderous, torturing racist jackasses, all the while claiming that is what Christians are all about!

Maguire says, get angry! Don't just lie there! And that's something wicked few preachers, fearing for their jobs, ever bother to do. Not just preachers and priests, either. Rank-and-file Christians just sit and smile, and vote for George, too, some of them.

It makes me have to keep reminding myself that it isn't Christians, it's these twads that are the enemy of my country. But why do the Christians never get angry?
 
cantdog said:
That's where the commencement speaker at the Seminary, Dan Maguire (this thread) had the right idea. If you're a Christian, you know these bums have the wrong idea! They're making Christians look like intolerant, murderous, torturing racist jackasses, all the while claiming that is what Christians are all about!

Maguire says, get angry! Don't just lie there! And that's something wicked few preachers, fearing for their jobs, ever bother to do. Not just preachers and priests, either. Rank-and-file Christians just sit and smile, and vote for George, too, some of them.

It makes me have to keep reminding myself that it isn't Christians, it's these twads that are the enemy of my country. But why do the Christians never get angry?

Basically, I suspect they don't get angry because they have seen the importance of religion in this country under attack by the Democrats for years. There is a movement to remove religion entierly from public life and it is from the left. That probably explains the emergence of the christian right into such a powerful faction.

While many may not agree with the reaction, most are more comfortable with an over compensation bringing religion back into public life than they are with it being attacked.

-Colly
 
I subscribe to JustGoodCompany, an online journal run by former Jesuits and others, including women religious. I received this email from the editor. The new site is where I read the Maguire article. If you read its 'letter from the editor' you will see more anger from a righteous (not right-wing) Christian. - Perdita

To the subscribers of JustGoodCompany:

I'm not going to "publish" the pieces I had prepared for the next issue of JustGoodCompany on our JustGoodCompany website. That site is owned and operated by West Coast Companeros Inc., a tax exempt religious organization that cannot get involved in partisan politics. Instead, with this note, I am directing you to a new personal site of my own, RBK.com where you can read what I wanted to run in JustGoodCompany, but was well advised not to do.

We are also taking this occasion to issue a call for articles for our next three issues. We'd like to devote most of our next issue to the subject of Money and the Church. To prime your pump, we'll pose this question: How did our humble little small-faith communities in the primitive Church become the stony institution we see today, one that looks and operates very much like -- a bank? Is it time for a stockholders' revolt? If so, what form should it take? Let your imaginations soar.

We'd also like your thoughts (or the thoughts of those you know and admire) on the current state of a most burning question: Women in the Church. We don't think we need to prime your pumps on that one.

Stay with us. And please forward this note on, especially to your American friends, before November 1. I am not trying to tell you how to vote. I am urging you to vote your conscience.

Robert Blair Kaiser
 
If you’re a Christian or you’re Muslim, you’re equally an American. That's the great thing about America is the right to worship the way you see fit.

Sure if your a Muslim it's ok, but if your a wiccan it's not.
 
Colleen Thomas said:


Faith based? It's a cheap catch phrase to hide the words Misogynistic, homophobic, repressive and hypocritical. Those words are not synonamous with faith, but they are synomamous with the brand of Religious politics these people are pushing on us all.

-Colly

Hallelujia!:devil:
 
Sweet, I believe there are Wiccan chaplains in some prisons. maybe also in or with the US army. {added, the Wiccan faith/practice is honored by the army, at any rate** see below}

Americans--like GWB-- don't have too much problem with A religion containing A god-- but many have a problem with no religion, no beliefs about a god, or belief there is no god.

Under a faith based presidency these persons will be less able to dictate the content of public and official gatherings where believers are in the vast majority. (Which is not to say they will be harassed or persecuted in any way. They may simply stand silent during prayers, leave the room/location, etc.)

======

Under a faith based presidency these persons will be less able to dictate the content of public and official gatherings where believers are in the vast majority. (Which is not to say they will be harassed or persecuted in any way. They may simply stand silent during prayers, leave the room/location, etc.)


-----
**
At many sites, including

http://www3.telus.net/hillwalker/milwicca.htm


The U.S. Army Chaplains Guide to Wicca



A guide to Wicca for U.S. Military chaplins.



EXTRACT FROM "Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: a Handbook for Chaplains"



U.S. Government Publication No.008-020-00745-5


Historical roots: Witchcraft is the ancient Pagan faith of Europe. This nature-oriented, agricultural, magical religion had no central organisation, but was passed through families. During the Christian era, particularly after the beginning of the systematic persecution of Witches in 1484, almost all the public expression of the Craft disappeared. Surviving in hidden and isolated places, Witchcraft has made a comeback in the twentieth century, partially spurred by the repeal of the last British Witchcraft Laws in 1951.

Current World Leadership: No central authority. Many Witches have, however, affiliated with the American Council of Witches, formed in 1974, to provide a structure for co-operation and mutual sharing.

Origins in the U.S.: Brought to the U.S. in the 17th century by immigrants from Europe. Since then, many Witches from many ethnic and national traditions have brought their religious practises to the New World. It survived in the isolation of rural settings and the anonymity in the city. The 1960's saw a significant revival of the Craft, and many Witches and "Covens" (local groups) became at least partially public. Many discovered others of like mind through the emerging Pagan press. A meeting in Minneapolis formed the American Council of Witches (1974) and a statement entitled "Principles of Wiccan Beliefs" was adopted.

Number of Adherents in the U.S.: Unknown: Between 10,000 and 100,000.

Organizational Structure: The basic structure is the Coven (local group) with 5 to 50 members (ideally 12-15) led by a High Priestess or High Priest. The Priest and/or Priestess derives authority from initiation by another Witch. Some Covens are tied together in fraternal relationships and acknowledge authority of a Priestess or Priest from whom orders are derived. Many are totally autonomous.

Leadership and Role of Priestess and/or Priest: The High Priestess and/or High Priest has authority for the Coven. Witches pass through three degrees as they practise the Craft:


1. acknowledges one as a full member of the Coven and initiates the process of mastering the skills of a Witch;



2. recognizes growth in ability and admits one to all the inner secrets; and

3. admits one to the priesthood.

Who may conduct Worship services?: A High Priestess or Priest.

Is group worship required?: No, but it is encouraged.

Worship requirements: None, but Witches are expected to practise their faith, which includes mastering magick, ritual, and psychic development and the regular worship of the Wiccan Deities.

Minimum Requirements for Worship: The athame, or ritual knife; the pentacle, a metal disc inscribed with magical symbols; a chalice; and a sword. Various traditions will demand other items.

[...]

Dietary Laws or Restrictions: None.

Special Religious Holidays: The four great festivals are seasonal:


[snipped...]
These are joined by four cross festivals related to the agricultural and herd-raising year:


[...]
Besides these eight, most Wiccan groups meet either weekly or bi-weekly (on the full and new moon).

[...]
Autopsy: Generally no restrictions.

Medical Treatment: No restrictions.

Uniform Appearance Requirements: None are proscribed.

Position on Service in the Armed Forces: No official stance. Many witches are presently military personnel, while others are conscientious objectors, derived, from the generally pro-life stance of Wicca.

Is a Priest or Priestess required at time of death?: No.

Any practices or teaching that may conflict with military directives or practices: None, generally, though individual covens may have some. The local Coven should be contacted if specific questions arise.
 
Last edited:
cant said,

That's where the commencement speaker at the Seminary, Dan Maguire (this thread) had the right idea. If you're a Christian, you know these bums have the wrong idea! They're making Christians look like intolerant, murderous, torturing racist jackasses, all the while claiming that is what Christians are all about!

[...]

It makes me have to keep reminding myself that it isn't Christians, it's these twads that are the enemy of my country. But why do the Christians never get angry?


With all due respect, Cant, socially conscious (e.g., 'left') Christians are a distinct minority, if you mean favoring government programs to advance social welfare (at home or abroad).

Maguire is a Jesuit; Jesuits, 'catholic worker mvt' persons, radical priests like Berrigan, and some in Latin America, some Quakers, etc, are the *activist* fringe of this minority. I'm going to guess maybe 1% of all Christians.

In fact the majority of R Catholics and protestants believe that, yes, the poor should be helped, but 'privately' --e.g., through churches-- and not by the government. Further, the same majority believe that the government should always be respected, never opposed (with action), rebelled against or subverted. These would be common views among the almost half of the voters who call themselves 'evangelical' or 'born again.' And a good many others. (Although now and again, one encounters a social activist evangelical.)

GWB has made it clear that his faith based presidency will act consistently with what this 'half' want. In a word, Graham, not Maguire.
 
Last edited:
So that, if we may define popular Christianity, at least, as that brand of it which has the majority of adherents:

It is really Christian to foster the spread of AIDS.

It is really Christian to crusade against all muslims, American or not, and Wiccans as well, doubtless. The consequences, the retributions, the planes driven into the sides of office buildings, only mean we have to crusade harder and up the ante.

It is really Christian to place women in a subordinate position legally, socially.

It is really Christian to force people to conform to your religion, so long as they are in a governmental setting. If they don't like it, they can leave the setting. Because it is Christian to believe that the United States is essentially a fundamentalist Christian state.

It is really Christian to torture, so long as it is non-majority people under the flensing knives.

A Christian police state is a comfort to everyone.


There, now, I see I had the wrong notion. It really is the Christians, not some cracked or warped portion of the faith, but really the Christians, who are my country's enemy. Sweet. I shall know how to act.
 
cantdog said:
So that, if we may define popular Christianity, at least, as that brand of it which has the majority of adherents:

It is really Christian to foster the spread of AIDS.

It is really Christian to crusade against all muslims, American or not, and Wiccans as well, doubtless. The consequences, the retributions, the planes driven into the sides of office buildings, only mean we have to crusade harder and up the ante.

It is really Christian to place women in a subordinate position legally, socially.

It is really Christian to force people to conform to your religion, so long as they are in a governmental setting. If they don't like it, they can leave the setting. Because it is Christian to believe that the United States is essentially a fundamentalist Christian state.

It is really Christian to torture, so long as it is non-majority people under the flensing knives.

A Christian police state is a comfort to everyone.


There, now, I see I had the wrong notion. It really is the Christians, not some cracked or warped portion of the faith, but really the Christians, who are my country's enemy. Sweet. I shall know how to act.

I think I love you! :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:
 
Well, there's plenty of blame to go around for all sides. Atheists need to understand their own hypocracy with trying to remove signs of all signs of religion from public life--essentially making their own faith the cultural norm. Essentially, they need to be as open and tolerant as they claim that Christians should be, and understand that atheism is itself a faith, not a superior state of mind devoid of faith.

And both sides, Christianity and Atheism, need to understand that reason and reality are not polarized words. A leader, regardless of his faith, has a commitment to fully explore the limits of reason before every decision he makes. The primary criticism against Bush is that he has not done so.
 
Pure said:
In fact the majority of R Catholics and protestants believe that, yes, the poor should be helped, but 'privately' --e.g., through churches-- and not by the government. Further, the same majority believe that the government should always be respected, never opposed (with action), rebelled against or subverted.
I protest. As for RCs, where did you get your data? The American RCC (the people, vs. the hierarchy) is considered very Leftist by the Vatican; Rome is extraordinarily concerned about this. There is a nation-wide movement (very organized) working to change, even revolt.

Perdita
 
AMY GOODMAN: An interesting quote of John Ashcroft saying “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.”

=

“Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which I require you to send your son to die for me.”

I know, I know......facetious........; couldn't help myself....
 
In the Old Testament, that many fundamentalist Christians use for their anathemas, God required that Abraham should sacrifice his son - therefore there is no difference between Islam and Christianity.

The modern interpretations send sons and daughters to die.

Og
 
oggbashan said:
In the Old Testament, that many fundamentalist Christians use for their anathemas, God required that Abraham should sacrifice his son - therefore there is no difference between Islam and Christianity.

The modern interpretations send sons and daughters to die.

Og

I'm going from memory, but didn't God stop Abraham right before he actually knifed the kid? God wants you to be willing to sacrifice your son, but then the idea is that he's so kind that he would never make you actually do so. Either that, or God was flipflopping.
 
fogbank said:
I'm going from memory, but didn't God stop Abraham right before he actually knifed the kid? God wants you to be willing to sacrifice your son, but then the idea is that he's so kind that he would never make you actually do so. Either that, or God was flipflopping.

Wooo......you're a facetious sod too, eh?
 
fogbank said:
Well, there's plenty of blame to go around for all sides. Atheists need to understand their own hypocracy with trying to remove signs of all signs of religion from public life--essentially making their own faith the cultural norm. Essentially, they need to be as open and tolerant as they claim that Christians should be, and understand that atheism is itself a faith, not a superior state of mind devoid of faith.

And both sides, Christianity and Atheism, need to understand that reason and reality are not polarized words. A leader, regardless of his faith, has a commitment to fully explore the limits of reason before every decision he makes. The primary criticism against Bush is that he has not done so.

You have to understand that I, as an atheist, can always simply sneer when you have your little opening prayers for every blessed meeting and each and every day of scholl over the loudspeakers, right along with the announcements and the Pledge. That's the way it was done when I was growing up. I shrugged it off, because I never minded if God blessed one thing or another, or if someone prayed for the trooops or prayed for the marigolds to bloom. Both actions, to me, were null actions, void of content. Pray on, said I. But the case was different for the Jewish kids. My high school had a double dose of Jewish kids, and a lot more Catholics, too, proportionally, because the town across the river was a KKK stronghold.

All those Jewish kids had to stand there and hear the amplified prayers "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, etcetera, etcetera," and if that wasn't enough, they always ended off, "In Jesus's name we pray."

Every mortal day. Twice if there were an assembly, because we couldn't have a fuckin assembly without a prayer in Jesus's name to open it with.

They said they were very careful to make the prayers "non-denominational" as well as trivial and pointless, because there was a movement growing to get the amplified Jesusing the hell off the backs of us all.

Schools are about the only place where you are forced to come in our society, since children have no rights. Schools were the battleground for this battle, therefore.

As I said, I could laugh it off. But the Jewish kids had relatives which had been buried in Europe because a Christian country became a little bit too intolerant of the non-Christians among them. WW II veterans were not in their nineties, then. Memories were recent of these events.

I don't think the Jewish kids could laugh it off quite so well.

If you can stretch your mind far enough to encompass such an idea.

What if you lived in Abu Dhabi? Born there. Every right to be there, and required by law to attend the school.

What if, as I imagine is the actual case in Abu Dhabi, five times a day, over loudspeakers, twice while you were in school, the muezzin sang out "Allahu akbar! Allah il Allah..."

And then every kid but you got on his knees and faced the Ka'aba. Every kid but you had words to recite and touched the ground with his forehead in simple faith and submission to a God you, as a Christian, were raised also to revere? But you had to just stand there, or go sit in the corner.

Twice a day, every day.

Bullshit.

Atheists need to understand their own hypocracy with trying to remove signs of all signs of religion from public life--essentially making their own faith the cultural norm.

I got no hypocrisy. It's not my issue. As an atheist, I would go ahead and kneel, to blend in. Could you do that, in Abu Dhabi, as a Christian?

And that's only the start of it.

Because if it's Graham and not Maguire, then muslims are an evil religion.

Don't give me your hypocrisy.
 
I'm ordained...

...as a minister. (Og isn't).

What happened to 'love thy neighbour'? Or 'Turn the other cheek'? Or 'Go the extra mile'?

Most mainstream religions including Christianity and Islam suggest tolerance for people of other faiths. Each may see the other as 'misguided' but not evil.

Religious differences between and inside faiths have caused many conflicts in the World's history. It is about time we allowed each other to be different without using that difference as a reason to kill.

Sermon over. Now you can resume the sex.

Jeanne_d_artois - Minister (aka Og who isn't)
 
cantdog said:
You have to understand that I, as an atheist, can always simply sneer when you have your little opening prayers for every blessed meeting and each and every day of scholl over the loudspeakers, right along with the announcements and the Pledge. That's the way it was done when I was growing up. I shrugged it off, because I never minded if God blessed one thing or another, or if someone prayed for the trooops or prayed for the marigolds to bloom. Both actions, to me, were null actions, void of content. Pray on, said I. But the case was different for the Jewish kids. My high school had a double dose of Jewish kids, and a lot more Catholics, too, proportionally, because the town across the river was a KKK stronghold.

All those Jewish kids had to stand there and hear the amplified prayers "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, etcetera, etcetera," and if that wasn't enough, they always ended off, "In Jesus's name we pray."

Every mortal day. Twice if there were an assembly, because we couldn't have a fuckin assembly without a prayer in Jesus's name to open it with.

They said they were very careful to make the prayers "non-denominational" as well as trivial and pointless, because there was a movement growing to get the amplified Jesusing the hell off the backs of us all.

Schools are about the only place where you are forced to come in our society, since children have no rights. Schools were the battleground for this battle, therefore.

As I said, I could laugh it off. But the Jewish kids had relatives which had been buried in Europe because a Christian country became a little bit too intolerant of the non-Christians among them. WW II veterans were not in their nineties, then. Memories were recent of these events.

I don't think the Jewish kids could laugh it off quite so well.

If you can stretch your mind far enough to encompass such an idea.

What if you lived in Abu Dhabi? Born there. Every right to be there, and required by law to attend the school.

What if, as I imagine is the actual case in Abu Dhabi, five times a day, over loudspeakers, twice while you were in school, the muezzin sang out "Allahu akbar! Allah il Allah..."

And then every kid but you got on his knees and faced the Ka'aba. Every kid but you had words to recite and touched the ground with his forehead in simple faith and submission to a God you, as a Christian, were raised also to revere? But you had to just stand there, or go sit in the corner.

Twice a day, every day.

Bullshit.



I got no hypocrisy. It's not my issue. As an atheist, I would go ahead and kneel, to blend in. Could you do that, in Abu Dhabi, as a Christian?

And that's only the start of it.

Because if it's Graham and not Maguire, then muslims are an evil religion.

Don't give me your hypocrisy.

Oh, touched a nerve! The note I had posted had nothing to do with you and was really about the attitudes of atheists in general. Hey, I'm an agnostic--though as a youth, I was more of an atheist, and even today I find myself agreeing more with atheists than with Christians during any spiritual debate. Like you, I was standing there rolling my eyes during morning prayers, so I can't answer your hypothetical any better than you can. Ideally a Christian would be equally tolerant, but I'm not about to speak for any of them. What I'm preaching is tolerance of religion, as opposed to removal of religion--that's all. If you're a tolerant atheist, great! From your posts I see nothing to believe otherwise. But there are a lot of atheists who attempt to force an atheist model on their social structures, and I object to that.
 
Back
Top