Religion
Related: About this forumReligion and government remain a dangerous and volatile mix
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/religion-and-government-remain-a-dangerous-and-volatile-mix/2012/10/11/c50e8354-121d-11e2-a16b-2c110031514a_story.htmlBy Rick Wingrove, Thursday, October 11, 7:22 AM
Rick Wingrove is the CEO of Beltway Atheists, Inc, the Virginia State Director of American Atheists , and a contributor to The Washington Posts local faith leader network.
Christopher Hitchens famously said that religion poisons everything. While a thorough search might turn up technical exceptions to this rule, one of the things religion certainly does poison is politics. Poison politics leads to toxic government.
Religious types have been leaning on government and meddling in elections since they were thanked for their input and given nice parting gifts by the authors of the Constitution. The problem for religious ideologues is this: despite some pretty extraordinary and self serving claims about mandates and dictates received directly from a micromanaging Bronze Age deity, the Constitution simply provides no role for religion in the government of the United States.
Official endorsement of any religion is prohibited. Religious tests for elected office are prohibited. The result of our constitutional non-establishment of religion has been a system of government that is nominally neutral on religion and which, by design, provides equal rights, protection, and access to all citizens regardless of their opinions on religion. What could possibly be fairer than that?
The worst elements of religion, however, dont consider this matter settled. Rabid fundamentalism, based on biblical literalism, is rampant in our politics. It would be a tremendous redistribution of the facts to argue that religious adamancy resides equally on the left and on the right. The imbalance has grown so great that the right genuinely believes that the god and creator of the entire universe is a Republican, that they are entitled to govern, that whatever it takes to install them permanently in power qualifies as democracy, and that compromise is the work of Satan and entirely out of the question. Claiming a mandate from a supreme deity is the ultimate untrumpable hand.
more at link
libodem
(19,288 posts)Thanks c. Great work.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)...every five seconds. The government is not meant to be religious. It was simply not built for it. Some things that the fundies do not understand is that many liberals get their values from their faith. Like when Jesus said feed the poor. That may sound like a commie plot to them, but Jesus did say to do that. Keep religion out of government.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The article is clearly aimed at those that want to legislate their personal religious beliefs, and, imo, continue to pose a significant thread.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)some other belief why would the threat necessarily be any less?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)on their institutional religious beliefs. Those almost always infringe on others who do not share their beliefs.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)threat be any less significant? So what if someone uses their religious belief that we are our brothers keeper as a principle of governments role to help the poor and disenfranchised is this a threat?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and then attempts to further legislation based on those beliefs, there is nothing technically wrong with that.
But when the legislation they are trying to further is religiously based and will impinge on the rights of others and violate the first amendment, then there is something wrong with that.
Helping the poor and disenfranchised is one thing. Calling for the restriction of rights of others, say GLBT people or women who want to control their own reproductive rights is quite another.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)regardless of the source be it religion based or not. A simplistic description perhaps but true.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)right now.
Since I don't agree with your concluding statement, I feel I have slipped in my arguments.
Can I get back to you, Leontius?
Leontius
(2,270 posts)The use of simplistic was in reference to what I said not to any of the points you made.
pinto
(106,886 posts)I like how the author takes a clear, logical progression to his point. From the hyperbolic and satirical to the crux of it all - religious extremists want to legislate self-selected social standards based on the standards of their personal faith not Constitutional standards.
Loved this line - "Religious types have been leaning on government and meddling in elections since they were thanked for their input and given nice parting gifts by the authors of the Constitution."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I agree with most everything he is saying, although I wish he had made some clearer distinctions.
But it is well written and on point, imo.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Seems he was trying to set it in a bit more specific frame. Short piece, probably could have been better if it was longer or more detailed. Yet I got the point. And he's obviously a clever writer.
Didn't realize WaPo had this section. Scanned the site and looked like some good reads there.