It remains quiet around here as I continue to juggle too many balls. But I have some beef with both the atheist/anti-Christian camps and with the holy roller set as well, so there may be some raucous shenanigans here soon. (We can only hope…or maybe you can…because I’ll probably regret it if I get into any long-winded arguments online here)
Holy Sh!+ from Deacon Blue
A Blog of Reason, Religion & Rants
Hello Deacon, I hope you are well.
I am an atheist but not a anti-christian…may I hear your beef?
twom
Oh, I’ll share my beefs soon I hope in actual posts. As far as the atheist camp goes, it’s mostly regarding hypocritical rhetoric and arguing points. i.e. They see nothing wrong with using exact same tactics that they ridicule theist types for using. Some specific examples are really eating at me.
On the Christian side, my beef is fueled by the arrival of my father in law, who’s a bit more Baptist fire and brimstone than I am (or quite a bit, more accurately), and some “doctrinal” things there are irritating me for their ludicrousness (or maybe ludicrosity?).
My tweets tonight can give you a taste of the latter (Christian oriented) beef, if you were to follow me on Twitter)
For those who don’t want to click on the handy “Deac Tweets” link in the sidebar, by the way, I’m thedeaconblue on Twitter.
I am anti religionists who try to alter society based on an invisible diety. Other than that, I think people should be able to believe in any damn thing they want. Even Barney.
I agree with you totally. But there is no doubt that plenty of folks who don’t believe in God (at least a lot of the vocal ones online and in the public eye) make ridiculous claims that the world would see drastic reductions of almost every evil thing if we got rid of religion, and they are willing to discredit theists using all sorts of annoying tactics (that are often the very same tactics they publicly revile among theists).
Anyway, life has remained too busy to post my thoughts on both sides of the God thing, so stay tuned…
Ball juggling sounds bad for your health.
Well, certainly, if they were Mike Tyson’s, I’d be in serious jeopardy of being six feet under pretty fast probably.
If my own, however, there is minimal risk.
Besides, I don’t think having any more kids is in my cards.
đ
Hello Deacon, how’s things?
You write:
“…the vocal ones online and in the public eye) make ridiculous claims that the world would see drastic reductions of almost every evil thing if we got rid of religion…”
Well what do you think would happen if the Islamic religion were kaput? I think at least a million people would still be alive. Then you have to remember that George Bush was talking to God, and God told him to attack Iraq. Hmmm…could we possibly assess a little blame to Christianity because of this speaking (and God presumably answering the Pres.)to the Christian God? So there is about 4 or 5 thousand of our young men that would still be alive.
As much as the government is trying to lie to us about it…the war IS a religious one as well as a political one.
twom
We’ve been down this road before. Using religion as an excuse for one’s actions or allowing oneself to make misguided decisions because of religious assumptions doesn’t make religion the villain. Most such people would make the same decisions (self centered, arrogant, oppressive, etc.) using some other reason…or no reason at all.
People take horrible, evil actions and make misguided decisions based on political ideology, economic interests, desire for power, etc. In fact, more evil is done in the name of just those three than in the name of religion. Yet most of us don’t talk about ending representative democracy or capitalism or ambition, just to name a few.
And if I recall, TWOM, you go off every so often on Islam as being inherently evil. Once again, I have to disagree. The vast majority of Muslims do not advocate violence of the sort we see with terrorists. In fact, studies are beginning to show that the people who understand Islam more and study it more closely are the ones LESS likely to commit violence. It’s the ignorant who are told by someone charismatic that the answer is to kill/cheat/steal/defraud/oppress/etc. that is the problem…not the system being used to sway the person’s mind.
WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War and the Cold War are perfect examples (and a long stretch of history) of how much damage is done with almost no religious agenda behind any of it.
Hello Deacon, good to talk to you.
You write:
âWeâve been down this road before. Using religion as an excuse for oneâs actions or allowing oneself to make misguided decisions because of religious assumptions doesnât make religion the villain. Most such people would make the same decisions (self centered, arrogant, oppressive, etc.) using some other reasonâŚor no reason at all.â
Of course we have and I really agree with you that it is men who take on the cover of religion who are the trouble. And many, many men have done this over the course of our earthly historyâŚwell, history since religion was invented around 1500 BC +-. So, these men wanted power and economic reward and a politic that ran the way they wanted so they use religion as cover for their misdeeds, and twist it around to their advantage. Sounds about right to me.
Now something I have been pondering recently is that President Bush (Jr.) was more or less put into power by the religious rightâthe evangelical fundamentalists who are waiting for the Rapture (and some even trying to hasten it on) and believe the bible is totally inerrant. The party is still run by these religious people. In the coming 2012 presidential election the republicans will probably choose from among 3 of these evangelical fundamentalists to run against Obama.
If you dig into some of the less âout thereâ people in the party you will find some interesting themes running through their minds.
A few examples of the writing on the subject:
âIn a politico-religious context, dominionism is the tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians, especially in the United States, to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action. The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.â
âDominion Theology is a grouping of theological systems with the common belief that the law of God – as codified in the Bible – should exclusively govern society, to the exclusion of secular law, a view also known as theonomy. As of 2010 the most prominent modern formulation of Dominion Theology is Christian Reconstructionism, founded by R. J. Rushdoony in the 1970s. Reconstructionists themselves use the word dominionism to refer to their belief that Christians alone should control civil government, conducting it according to Biblical law.â
âIn the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a dominionist is a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus.â Bruce Baron
âAccording to Diamond, the defining concept of dominionism is “that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy ALL secular institutions until Christ returns”. In 1989, Diamond declared that this concept “has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right”). In 1995, she called it “prevalent on the Christian Right”. Journalist Chip Berlet added in 1998 that, although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists assert a Christian duty to take “control of a sinful secular society.”
Now Iâm no conspiracy theorist, but this stuff is real and many people are writing about it and it is essentially men once again taking cover of, and flying the banner, of religion to wage war on secular society, and also I might addâŚwar on another religion.
The Catholic ChurchâŚbeing the original practitioners of dominionismâŚare behind this effort as well. Just think about the Republicans, the Catholic Church, and the fundamentalist churches and how strongly and effectively they are fighting against abortion and homosexualityâŚthey really want to outlaw these âabominationsâ and start throwing people in jail. How far behind will the outlawing of Heresy, Blasphemy, Fornication, Witchcraft, Coveting and a host of other things that the Bible proscribed 2000 years ago?
Just think of the Dark Ages all over again, and think of the forces that are afoot in todayâs world. Religion in its simplest forms is probably good in small towns and cities, but it gets big and people start plotting and scheming and that scares the hell out of me.
You write:
âAnd if I recall, TWOM, you go off every so often on Islam as being inherently evil. Once again, I have to disagree. The vast majority of Muslims do not advocate violence of the sort we see with terrorists.â
You may want to look at my latest post at thewordofme (02-09-11) and also check out the one entitled âMuslims continue to kill Christiansâ a few posts down. After that go down one to âThere are NO Moderate Muslimsâ interesting stuff reported there.
So I will stand by my feeling that Islam is truly evil and a scourge upon the earth that should be excised.
Regarding the wars you talk of the only one I am aware of that had some religious overtones was WWII and the Catholic madman Hitler trying to exterminate the Jews (primarily) while the Catholic Church was cheering it on. He was also trying to exterminate pornography and heresy and blasphemy and free-thinking. Burned a lot of books he did.
Peace,
twom
Not claiming that religion played NO part in WWII (or any of the other conflicts I mentioned)…but it was a footnote, NOT a driving force. The driving force behind Germany in WWII was economics and ethnic cleansing.
So, I would say they were religious undertones rather than overtones. đ
We’ll have to continue to agree to disagree about Islam and whether one can take the actions of the minority to demonize an entire religion and virtually all of its adherents.
As for your commentary on the Christian right and American politics, I think we have to separate out some things here.
The religious right didn’t truly elect George W. Bush. There aren’t enough of them to do that. What got Bush elected was a combination of factors, including that group. But a lot more of it was that people got sucked into the “he’s a regular guy who understands us” bullshit. Plus, people don’t like change, particularly white people with money and white people who are struggling. They tend to carry the day in elections because of sheer numbers, and they feared the onslaught of social collapse from non-whites, gays, non-Christians, etc. It’s less about religion than about status quo and people being easily distracted and easily led around by propaganda.
Could all that lead to more Christian or religious lawmaking?
Yes, theoretically. But overall, what moves things in America is money, and the money is mostly held by corporations, which are highly secular. A religious state wouldn’t be tolerated by most because it could bit them on that ass. So it won’t happen. Will religion creep in here and there? Sure. But so will human fears about things they don’t understand like homosexuality, stem cell research and a host of others.
There are a lot of ignorant people out there who don’t go to church regularly or read their Bibles who empower the right wing.