acroyear | *sigh* - implicit assumptions remain, despite all evidence...

Current Music: Allan Holdsworth - In The Mystery - Metal Fatigue

Entry tags:

sigh - implicit assumptions remain, despite all evidence...

evidence either in the specific individual (as you'll see), and evidence in the general. Being "religious" is not and should never e a magical panacea that suddenly allows one to either declare themselves nor be universally interpreted as being more moral than one who does not practice or believe.

We've had centuries of power abuse by the Catholics, scores of religious civil wars and strife throughout the planet (often among "Christians"), decades of revelations of violence, sex abuse, corruption, and hypocrisies among religious leaders and the political leaders who are supported by them, lies upon lies upon lies in the name of power or money, yet STILL the general populace and the courts (oh, especially the courts) put professed religious belief ahead of any actual evidence of (a)morality when making decisions that affect children's lives.

Dispatches from the Culture Wars: New Ruling on Religion and Custody:

I've got a friend in New York who just went through this and I'm gathering all the legal documents to publicize that case. The outcome was beyond outrageous. The mother, who had full custody during the divorce and custody fight, lost custody because the father would make the child attend church while the mother would not.

This despite the fact that the father had multiple drunk driving arrests and even admitted under oath that he still drove with the child in the car after drinking. This also despite the fact that he had a history of violence, enough to warrant a personal protection order granted to the mother. But the judge felt that raising the child in a "Christian" environment trumped all of that.

Mitt Romney recently did a speech that absolutely disgusted me and pretty much anyone who believes that the Constitution was extremely specific in declaring that no religious test should be required for office. In order to diffuse all the negativity he was (and still is) receiving over his Mormonism, he openly declared all atheists and agnostics to be the real enemies in order to win back support - the only way for "Christians" to stop hating (well, postpone it, really) other "Christians" is to declare that all "non-Christians" are the enemy. And if you can't get away with openly declaring yourself anti-semitic or anti-islam (which they often are), you simply go for the one target that isn't "politically correct" and has no extended history of defending their rights.

Romney declared a new war of hate and that the media praised him for it, and that disgusts me.

Note: I'm not saying that Huckabee's stunt last week, where he said "I won't run this anti-Romney ad" loudly and publicly so that the media would run it for him and get his message out while his hands stay clean, was any better - it was simply more of the same hypocrisy and it strikes me as really odd that the media so lapped it up that they don't realize just how badly they are being abused and manipulated.

This pretty much sums it up for me...

*sigh*

By the way, Ron Paul is *hardly* any better - he doesn't support or accept evolution, is anti-immigrant and isolationist, and in the name of "freedom" would allow quack "medicine" to advertise and promote itself with impunity, and that's just the crap I can confirm...

Maybe later, I'll write up why none of the Democratic Party candidates are any better...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Oh I dunno... Dodd seems pretty decent about now.

If you go to

dark_christian and click on the search icon on the user info page and type in Ron Paul, you'll come up with some interesting info on his connections to the "wackier" conservative Christians.

dark_christian is a watch dog blog keeping track of primarilary Dominionist activities but covers just about any outrageous activity by those that have allied themselves with conservative Christians.

I've been detesting the words "religious" and "Christian" far too much in these last few months/years, instantiating a personal shame in that I used to use those words to describe myself. I don't need my mixed emotions to get any worse...yet.

I wish your article surprised me. I used to be a case investigator volunteer for the Earth Religions Legal Assistance Network, helping people gather data and information to forestall loss of business lease, rental agreements and child custody in cases that said "pagans are teh ebil Satanists" and nothing else. Sadly, those cases were frequently successful against the pagans because people automatically believe the worst of someone who does not attend church, let alone someone who doesn't worship the God of Abraham.

It's disturbing to say the least, but no longer a surprise.

the greatest irony, of course, is that they all are doing this while declaring that they're merely protecting themselves from the "persecutions" they've been suffering for decades...

yeah, right.

Yeah, the whole "persecuted/oppressed majority" thing is a rather difficult pill to swallow ...

That's mostly because it's complete bullshit.

"persecution" meaning "any slip from being the dominant religion and the moral high ground in this country".

The decision you talk about sounds along those lines. There is a desire from some to "stick up" for their religion, even if the rational to go the other way is sound.

"the greatest irony, of course, is that they all are doing this while declaring that they're merely protecting themselves from the "persecutions" they've been suffering for decades..."

Umm, huh? Christians are persecuted. All the time.

In America we've been pretty safe, but that's unique both in history and even in the world today. For a long time, crucifixion and getting thrown to the lions were the norm. Now, in many countries, you'll still be arrested and likely killed for reading a Bible, starting a church, having a Bible study, etc. So, no, it's not complete B.S.

Maybe by sarcastically referencing "persecution" you were referring to the fact that Christians generally have it cushy in this country. I'm not excusing abuses of power over here - certainly this child-custody case *is* complete nonsense.

But what makes the average Christian worried is when people start pounding their fist and saying that religion has no place in a free society whatsoever. That's the first step towards getting the shackles thrown on us, just like it is in much of the rest of the world.

By being a free society, religion has to be allowed as part of it.

I really don't see dopes like this judge and the drunk driver guy as accurately representing my faith. But if it helps, I apologize on behalf of people who call themselves Christians and then do outrageous things like this.

And thanks for posting informative news stories like this. It helps to keep things in perspective when I do feel "persecuted" that yeah, there are abuses of power on both sides.

It's not "much of the world", unless you go by strict population counts, in which case China horribly distorts the statistics. The middle-east is its own monster and always has been, but part of that monster was created BY the crusader Christians a thousand years ago, reinforced by political actions of the empire nations of the 19th century that only became a religious issue when a religious state was thrust upon their real estate.

By being a free society, religion has to be allowed as part of it.

Which religion?

THAT is the issue: when few religions are permitted to even tolerate the existence of others, and when their moral specifics are ingrained at a dogmatic level by preachers claiming to speak for "God" but really more interested in holding on to their own political power, what point does "religion" have in that society but to act to control it?

Only if NO religion is allowed to exert any political control is a society truly free.

Period.

There is NO EXCEPTION to this. None. You can not convince me otherwise. There is no rational argument that can be convincing. The very history of the church (of almost ALL churches) is, in itself, proof of that.

When a religion uses its numbers to enact political control over the minority, it is a tyranny, and it is a tyranny every church leader associated with the religious "right" Republican today relishes the chance for, and every action they take is not in God's love, but to impose that tyranny. This includes every lie they tell, *especially* those about science and history (like their numerous claims that the founding fathers wanted to create a "Christian" nation).

When a religion (as in a single sect) manipulates and over-uses the word "Christian" in order to make those not of the same sect act as if they were by not being aware of the extreme differences between their dogmas, as the religious right leaders often do to gain the votes of moderate and liberal sects like Episcopal and Methodist, they do so as an intentional distortion and a pure lie. And they do so *knowing* they are getting those moderates and liberals to vote against their real conscience by that association with the vague and common term, "Christian". In doing so, they are blasphemers in the *purest* sense of the word and I reject them - they contribute willfully to the sin of others.

And I *AM* Christian, last I checked. I just made the decision that the politics driving the churches, and driving my own church (Episcopal) to pieces, was not driven by the Spirit or a sincere effort to better mankind, but to continue to assert political control and a single, incorrect, interpretation of scripture into law and policy without regards to even the possibility that it might be wrong or immoral in reinforcing the absolute hatred (often, of gays) behind it.

MY faith is unchanged: it's the churches, including my own that got corrupted into thinking there is such a thing as a man less worthy than another of love, or lying by claiming to "love" while applying all the prejudice and hatred in their actions. That is a rejection of Christ's message and so I reject the church.

Religion can have a "place in society", and even Dawkins has said so (much as the commentators have missed that part in his books) but religion should NEVER be in a position to control it again. Such an action is the death of freedom in the purest sense and I will reject it.

Those who speak of "persecutions" speak only against the ACLU and others who would get in their way of having their theocratically-distorted vision of "morality" imposed on us as a tyrannical law. They claim "persecution" every time someone actually asserts that the Constitution forbids them their "right" to impose their religion in the classroom, or at taxpayer expense, or at the exclusion of other religions. They are indeed full of shit and such is the reason my original "persecutions" was in quotes.

"Only if NO religion is allowed to exert any political control is a society truly free."

I would say the optimal goal is to allow all religions to function free of government interference, and that people of all faiths should be allowed to participate in the government. I agree that trying to control or manipulate one over the other via political means is bad.

"And I *AM* Christian, last I checked."

I never made any statements about your faith either way. I only spoke for myself. I couldn't assume or put those words in your mouth.

But there-in lies my more significant point: not all "Christians" are the same, and acting as if they are is a form of deception.

I would say the optimal goal is to allow all religions to function free of government interference, and that people of all faiths should be allowed to participate in the government.

Which is indeed what I said, albeit with a little more anger and for that I'm sorry.

I agree that trying to control or manipulate one over the other via political means is bad.

Exactly, which belies my core point - at what point can you openly declare, or would you, that the monsters who do that are not really "Christian", or openly recognize that being "Christian" is no judge of character. One is judged by their actions alone and not by the (vain) labels they place upon themselves.

It is this abuse of the label "Christian" that has me angered, mostly because it has forced me, in spite of my faith and the strong connections I have with the people of my particular church (even though I've not been there in years), to have to abandon that label rather than be associated with those who would use that label as a source of pride and a means to create in people's hearts a religious elite where none should ever exist.

My faith is unchanged. Christ's word and message is unchanged. The label "Christian" has been so abused that my heart is broken to hear it anymore because it's not connected with anything but this hatred and blasphemy.

I'm sorry this has upset or bothered you to the point of leaving. This anger of mine is not directed at you, nor at any of the reasonable Christians who truly believe and live in love. Some people's walk with Christ has them living his moments of peace and forgiveness, or giving teachings and parables, or at the ability to share and heal others (in the "make one whole" sense). I know people at all three of these.

Right now, my walk has me facing the money-lenders tables and I remain split on what I can or should do about it. I have learned and felt deeply where his anger that day came from and that is the type of anger I feel.

I completely understand - people have often tried to put me in a box as a Christian, and it can be quite frustrating.

I may come back to your LJ. I left just because I know my own tendency to let my emotions get carried away. I hadn't done that yet, and I wanted to leave before it happened.

But what makes the average Christian worried is when people start pounding their fist and saying that religion has no place in a free society whatsoever.

I daresay that worries non-Christians of other religions, too. The point is that Bill O'Reilly (for example) may claim he's being persecuted for his faith, when his faith is the majority in this country, at the highest levels of government and among the general population.

In the U.S., religion has no place in publc policy. That's different from the free society.

Thank you for such a polite reply, Jen. Yes, I'm sure that other faiths must be worried about the same thing. I wasn't trying to exclude them so much as I just wanted to write about what I *was* familiar with.

(Heh. Looks like my other post defaulted to my October sig. Want a rock, anyone?) :)

To me, the drunk driving thing is the main issue. The dad should have been ruled against simply for that.

Faith is great. Using it as an excuse or cover-up for bad behavior is not.

And my point is that "having Faith" is not the same thing as leading a moral life and courts (and people) that use "Faith" as a decision criteria are introducing a bias whose history shows its a very bad indicator of responsibility.

If it is so easy to use as "an excuse or cover-up for bad behavior" and so unreliable to tell when its not, then it should not be considered a reasonable means for making or justifying a legal decision.

look at it this way, strictly constitutionally:

by deciding that the "religious upbringing" is even a criteria in decisions like this, the court is effectively promoting an establishment of religion. the very decision itself is against the very intent of the first amendment.

all secular criteria should be considered *exclusively*, allowing the parent who by such objective standards is considered the most fit to have custody, and then they are FREE by the first amendment to then chose the child's religious education and upbringing.

ANY other decision puts the government in control of the religious upbringing of children and that is a GROSS violation of the intent of the first amendment.

As appalling as that Michigan case is, I'd like to see the court rulings before believing any "I've got a friend who" tale, even as theocratic as this country is becoming. A decision as unconscionable as the one the blogger describes would be ripe for appeal in any state and would probably make headlines. Custody could not be awarded based solely on religion--granted, the way we're going, conditions are favoring it more and more, but the legal grounds just aren't there.

Well, the Michigan case is still in the state courts, and last I checked, standard interpretation of the 14th amendment, when combined with the 9th, means that it has to clear the state courts entirely before an appeal can be made on U.S. Constitutional grounds that the state courts violated the 14th (and 1st) when they made their ruling. State courts tend to like to only acknowledge their own state's constitution - if you want to appeal on federal precedent, appeal to a federal court, it seems.

Actually, the U.S. Constitution applies to all state government actions, as well as private entities and individuals engaged in interstate commerce under the 14th Amendment. So U.S. constitutional grounds can be raised in both state and federal court if it's a claim against the state--which the Michigan decision would be.

but as the second post (New Jersey) pointed out, the state courts have a knack for ignoring the U.S. Constitution when their state constitution has a clause on the subject at hand. In spite of the 14th, they'll often ignore it as long as they can and make the loser appeal to a federal court. The nice thing about (abuse of) judicial independence is that it is perfectly safe for them to do that.

But I'd still rather have true judicial independence than the alternative.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

sigh - implicit assumptions remain, despite all evidence...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject