While I would love to believe this, the evidence is not promising for reversing the encroachment of Religion in government. And it never will be until Secularists, that means atheists, agnostics or those in progressive branches of the major religions, demand more from the Democratic party.
The referenced diary describes one aspect of the infiltration of evangelicals into the military, focusing on the pentagon building. I am familiar with this and have had the privilege of meeting Mikey Weinstein who is leading the battle against the Christianizing of the American Military. I have written many diaries on this same subject from a different perspectives.
Even PBS felt compelled to air a blatant propaganda piece entitled "Wall of Separation" a term the producers argue is fraudulent. After several viewings I was able to find a specific misleading aspect in this film, that was featured on the web site of the PBS ombudsman.
A more detailed description of our Democratic party deferring to the Religious right was in this diary Feds now control Mt. Soledad Cross Site This tells of legislation that illustrates the thesis of this diary. The Democratic Senators refused to stop the takeover of land for the sole purpose of maintaining a 42 foot high Christian Cross over San Diego.
When I spoke to Representative Bob Filner about his Senate colleagues lack of courage, having voted against the bill in the house, he responded with a sad shake of his head, “Sometimes you have to do what is right, no matter the political cost.”
What is rarely said on this site, and needs saying, is that the candidates for the nomination of our party, are more concerned in capturing the Religious vote then they are in taking a stand against the Christianizing of our country-which includes the military. Do I hear a communal, “Duh, they have to get elected, dude.”
Yes, and they can get elected if they differentiate themselves more clearly from those who would erase the separation of church and state that has served our country so well for so many decades.
The nine candidates for the Presidential nomination were asked during the Iowa debates a few weeks ago their feelings about a personal God who responds to prayer, specifically to thwart disasters such as Katrina:
This was Dennis Kucinich's response
So when we think of the scriptures, Isaiah making justice the measuring line; Matthew 25, "whatever you do for the least of our brethren"; where the biblical injunction, "make peace with your brother" -- all of these things relate to my philosophy.
Now, the founders meant to have separation of church and state, but they never meant America to be separate from spiritual values. As president, I'll bring strong spiritual values into the White House, and I'll bring values that value peace, social and economic justice, values that remember where I came from.
His words, that the founders never meant America to be separate from spiritual values is the prime talking point of those who would return prayer to public schools and the ten commandments to the walls of our courts.
Other candidates took the occasion to proclaim their personal relationship with God, even though they explained they prayed for more abstract comfort than changing the course of hurricanes. But not a single viable candidate refuted the idea that praying to God was an essential component of being a national leader, along with the implication that this belief is integral to what it means to be an American.
Only one candidate, Mike Gravel, the one with support that wavers between zero and one percent, felt free enough to utter these words.
And so you can pray -- I was always persuaded or struck by the fact that many people who pray are the ones who want to go to war, who want to kill fellow human beings. That disturbs me.
The mass delusion of Apocalyptic Christianity may, in fact, lead this nation, and perhaps the world, into the catastrophe that they predict. I'm sure that there are those in the Military who are outraged by this, but where are they to draw their strength. When they look at the Republicans they see this belief reflected in the highest places. Yet, when they look at the Democrats they see a quiet acceptance, a refusal to explicitly reject this pernicious distorted sect of Christianity,out of fear of losing votes.
Just as we demand that Gays, Blacks and the impoverished not be marginalized by our candidates, we have a right to demand that they demonstrate their acceptance and respect for those who do not believe in God. We are part of the fabric of America. While this should go without saying, this is under attack, from the leaders of the Republican party, to the burgeoning Evangelical movement, to the new majority of the Supreme Court.
It is about time we insist that our party- the secular party, the “reality based” party- stand up for these principles. Silence, and just being a bit better than the Republicans will not reverse the blind ideology that is taking over our hitherto Secular Democracy.
****
Addendum:
Some comments indicate a lack of awareness of the current aggressive antipathy towards non believers. Nothing better illustrates the current view of those who would reject the concept of “Separation of Church and State” as these:
One cannot say the word "God," or "the Almighty," one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.
This was not from a Fox pundit or a right wing blogger. This was written by Justice Anton Scalia in his dissent in this 2005 Supreme Court Case on allowing a copy of the ten commandments in a court house. He has since been joined by two justices who share his world view on many issues, so there is reason to believe this would now be the decision of the court, that our constitution permits the “disregard of devout atheists.”
If this were to be adopted, atheists would legally become non-persons. And Monotheism would have become our national religion. ------------
Originally posted at Dailykos on 9-2-07- Still relevant today
No comments:
Post a Comment