Freethought & Rationalism Archive

galiel · 09-24-2002, 06:11 PM

So, after that refreshing if irrelevant interlude of Hoover-worship, back to the actual thesis, restated:

An Accomodationist take-over of the Judiciary, coupled with a Christian Reconstructionist take-over of the Executive, coupled with a Creationist take-over of public education, spell grave danger to our democratic republic.

The underlying cancer which eats away at US-ian democracy is the institution of organized, hierarchical authoritarian religions, whose mechanisms, rituals and absolutist teachings are inimicable to a free, independent, self-determining citizenry.

Strict Separationism, strictly enforced, is essential to the survival of our republic.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Bible Humper · 09-26-2002, 01:52 PM

Quote:

It's not so much a "conspiracy", in the traditional sense of a small cabal of people gathering in a dark room to plot the overthrow of government. It is more of a coordinated effort among the leaders of different messianic extremist groups who share the ultimate goal of a theistic state and the hastening of the End of Days.

A coordinated effort to make America a theocracy would indeed be a conspiracy.

Quote:

Read what they preach to the choir, and you will hear things that go way beyond wanting to "restore morality" or bring prayer back to the public schools. They are openly hostile to and mocking of democracy, they view their ultimate allegiance to God as overriding any Earthly concerns. Just as Bush has simplistically equated Iraq with "Evil" (more of a traditional right-wing approach), these extremists identify "secular America" itself as the great "Evil", capitalized and iconized. For them, democracy is the Devil's work.

There are many who would be happy to see less democracy in America. The question is how large a role the religious kooks play in agitating for change in that direction.

The lion's share of religious loons are backwoods rural folk, their political representatives are happy enough to play along and throw them a couple minor bones, but that's about it.

The geopolitical strategies of the U.S. are not based on belief in an imminent magical return of the messiah. The people who constitute the brains behind the government are all extensively educated, and we all know how education and religion are like oil and water.

Quote:

Again, in and of itself, the ubiquity of people of a certain belief system in positions of power does not mean anything in our pluralistic society with its checks and balances and cyclical politics. In and of itself, none of this would be such a problem, were the ultimate goal, a theocratic America, not inimicable to the U.S. system of government and way of life.

From time to time, a particular ideology holds sway and a particular set of actors control the stage. However, as long as our representative republic is intact, as long as free speech and assembly are preserved, and as long as education is not monopolized, competing ideologies have a chance to be heard and the natural cycle continues.

This is not the first time in our history that we have been faced with a deliberate effort to subvert America and destroy its democratic institutions, and in the past our institutional checks and balances have won out.

All I have seen is the same sort of thing that has gone on in the name of "political correctness" for years, censorship of things that violate their particular taboos.

They stop well short of going further than superficial and relatively "harmless" changes for the sake of religious taboo, I would expect that if these leaders were genuinely afraid of The Great Magic Sky-Juju that they would have put a stop to abortion as soon as they were able, as an example. The real fundamentalists that these guys emulate for the sake of votes would have done so immediately.

Quote:

It is not an individual or specific organization that is fronting the effort. It is the combination of thousands of little efforts, all united by faith and galvanized through the community institution and communication conduit of the church. And they are cynically exploiting the "normal" conservative right, which does want to inject more religion into American society, but hardly would favor a theistic oligarchy.

The fact that they are myriad disparate factions only emphasises why I find this whole scenario so unlikely, they are ultimately out for themselves, not "united by faith".

A great example would be Pat Robertson, when he was in the process of negotiating potentially very lucrative deals with "godless" China, he actually defended their practice of partial birth abortions which consists of inserting a needle into the soft spot of an emerging baby's skull and injecting formaldahyde into the infant's brain. I guess Yahweh is ok with it as long as Pat can get a good deal, eh?

Another con artists is Benny Hinn, does anyone really think that he is so "blinded by faith" that he believes that he is really magically healing people of AIDS, paralysis, etc. in his studio audience? Yahweh won't mind this guy getting rich pretending to have magic powers granted by him, eh?

Are these guys consistent with what you would expect from theoretical believers so devoted to the ideas of their religious dogma that they are dedicating themselves body and soul towards the magical return of Jesus from behind the stars?

Religion is a shell game without a pea, the leadership of the fundamentalist movements have tons of charisma which they can use, but that's about it.

With charisma being the only prerequisite to being a world famous religous icon, these guys are just not equipped to deal with the extensively educated professionals who constitute the brains behind the government. These people train for years in negotiation and strategy, they aren't about to be outdone by the cranks, crackpots, kooks and loons who are expecting Jesus to descend from the clouds on a beam of light "any day now", nor from the showmen who profit from them.

Quote:

The old money in America does not hold nearly the influence it once did. And, old or new, no American institution has had to confront the aggregate power and wealth of religious institutions, nor had to deal with their unfair advantages in terms of exemptions and waivers of the limits and laws that bind the rest of us.

Big business trumps religion hands down for political influence, not only do they have more money, they have more of a consensus among themselves regarding what they want (loose labour and pollution regulations, low taxes), and actually stand to directly profit from it.

Quote:

You might as well have said that enlightend Germany would never allow something like Hitler. The thing is, unlike, say McCarthy, the Radical Messianic Right is very sophisticated in its public pronouncements and takes advantage of the narrow funnel through which most of the public still recieves their information. And they are tremendously patient.

The present situation in America can in no way compare with the widespread misery that is the breeding ground of the sort of extremism that bred Hitler.

I would advise against treating the "Radical Messianic Right" as a single entity in the way you have, there is no consensus among them regarding public pronouncements, etc.

The religious leadership would all love to claim personal credit for any particular political accomplishment, the kind of coherence that you attribute to them that would be necessary to stifle a Robertson or Falwell who wanted to take credit for, and thus profit from, any particular achievement for the sake of not attracting attention is indeed on the level of a conspiracy, a very well organised conspiracy in fact.

Buffman · 09-26-2002, 02:24 PM

Sorry, good neighbor! I could not disagree with you more.

I realize that I am not providing you with empirical evidence for you to falsify. However, I have to wonder if you have been reading the topics in this forum for any length of time.

Bible Humper · 09-26-2002, 04:33 PM

Hello Buffman!

Well, I've only been here since May but I didn't live in a bubble up to then.

Regarding your earlier points:

Quote:

Where to begin? Where to begin? First, Communism doesn't really violate Christian taboos.(If we look closely, we may discover that Christianity began as a communal society. Aren't the Quakers rather "communal?") It was making Atheism the national standard of a communist government that upset the Christians. That standard denigrated/banned superstition as a means to achieve the greatest benefit for the greatest number of humans. That's when the label "Godless Communists" came into vogue. Then it was the actions of that communist government to curtail the influence of theism over the minds and affairs of the people that further frightened many Western religionists. (There have been many lengthy discussions concerning the importance of controlling the minds of the children. For all practical purposes, The Communist Party removed the Church from that educational process and made it increasingly more difficult for the previously indoctrinated adults to practice their faith beliefs in public.) A great deal of fine information can be found here:

The link you provided didn't seem to be the right one.

I can't remember ever reading this interpretation of events regarding the attitudes in the west towards the rise of communism, this doesn't mean you're wrong but it does make the claim extraordinary.

Religious sentiment was certainly used to this end, but the fervor with which it was carried out was due to the fact that the theory of the ideology called for a complete overthrow of the status quo. Education and alternate new age beliefs present a large threat to christianity also but we don't see even a fraction of the effort expended combating these things.

The Pope called for tight controls on the internet in order to prevent people from "getting confused" about religion or some such thing and everyone just smiles and thinks about what a moronic dinosaur he is. If the internet existed and was blamed for spreading the ideas of communism during the red scare there would have been all sorts of controls implemented.

That second link dealing with the plight of the Buddhists in Vietnam is a good example of a religiously motivated backlash against oppression. Note how the Buddhists had realised what "christian tolerance" was all about and that is what caused them who "had no common interests" to cooperate. No surprise there, the legacy of christianity in colonial holdings was always shameful, brutal and ruthless.

That third link was also wrong I think, it addresses the lame duck argument that atheism = communism = Stalinism. There was no mention of propaganda techniques.

That fourth link was good for a laugh and indeed an excellent piece of christian propaganda.

Quote:

I wouldn't rush to place any money down on that bet...not if you haven't studied a good deal of human history. Thoughout history, tens-of-millions-of-people have simply rolled over and taken it in far more places than simply the anal sphincter...many in the back of the head.

An American theocracy would require a widespread misery of the kind that the Hitlers and Ayatollahs of the world need in order to flourish.

Quote:

That's quite a stretch. Bush doesn't need to do anything so outrageous. He simply has to divert attention away from his failures, lies, and problems. Why not break with his most cherished philosopher, Jesus, and preemptively attack any nation he can sell to the American public as "evil?" (Especially if it is sitting on top of so much oil.) Bush is a moral hypocrite. Saddam is a brutal tyrant/murderer. There are many more just like him. Who appointed America to be the world's only moral policeman. Not the U.N. Not the World Court. If we can impose our so-called moral outrage on Iraq, why can't China impose its moral outrage on Taiwan? Or India on Pakistan? Or Indonesia on East Timor? Or Russia on Chetchnya? Iraq preemptively attacked Kuwait. We were outraged. Why did they attack? Why were we outraged? Is Kuwait a pluralistic Democracy?

Actually I see eye to eye with you on this indictment of Bush, everyone can see how desperate the Bush administration is now that they are on the brink of peace. I just think that it is a big stretch to see it as part of some sort of strategy to prepare America for the magical return of Jesus from the sky.

Quote:

Are you referring to the Bush's and Kennedys? That's certainly not old big money? What about the Rockafellers? Heard from them lately? I was seeking some specific names.

Actually, I wasn't just referring to a few specific dynasties but to the entire hereditary elite as a whole.

The last links regarding the activities of the right contain some real gems, but there was a lot of the typical right wing nationalism, homophobia and racism that they didn't even need the encouragement of Jesus for this time.

The Republicans have thrown the fundies a few bones, I certainly agree, but whether they are under the control of the "Radical Messianic Right" is another question entirely, though.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>

Buffman · 09-26-2002, 11:15 PM

B.H.

Another challenging post not easily or quickly answered without extensive background references. I will give it a go.

The link you provided didn't seem to be the right one.

That link invited you to use it to help confirm my contention about the similarities between Christianity and Communism.

I can't remember ever reading this interpretation of events regarding the attitudes in the west towards the rise of communism, this doesn't mean you're wrong but it does make the claim extraordinary.

I must assume that you are fully knowledgeable about the Joseph McCarthy years in this country. However, you may not be as aware of the onslaught of popular publications that found their way into the psyche of the average American following "Tail Gunner" Joe's fall from grace. Here are a few titles that would help to explain why I have said some of the things I have:

1. "Masters of Deceit" by J. Edgar Hoover, Henry Holt ed. 1958
2. "The Naked Communist" by W. Cleon Skousen, The Ensogn Publishing Company, 1958
3. "The Moulding of Communists: The Training of the Communist Cadre" by Frank S. Meyer, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1961
4. "None Dare Call It Treason" by John A. Stormer, Liberty Bell Press, 1964

Each of these books contain discussions on the Communist relationship/treatment of religion, specifically Christianity. I have a rather extensive library filled with similar references. However, one of the more accurate insights into what really happened in the old USSR, can be found in "Utopia in Power: The History of the Soviet Union from 1917 to the Present" by Mikhail Heller and Aleksandr M. Nekrich, (translated from the Russian by Phyllis B. Carlos), Summit Books, 1986. (This translation updates the original 1982 edition to March 11, 1985 and the election of Mikhail Gorbachev as the general secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.) The numerous pages of discussion about "churches" is some of the best I have uncovered for objectivity.

So, when you find my claims "extraordinary" perhaps it will help if you know that I have done some "extraordinary" research and study in that area.

Religious sentiment was certainly used to this end, but the fervor with which it was carried out was due to the fact that the theory of the ideology called for a complete overthrow of the status quo.

Within whom was this status quo "fervor" the most evident? Many U.S. labor organizations had been calling for change for decades.

Education and alternate new age beliefs present a large threat to christianity also but we don't see even a fraction of the effort expended combating these things.

I'm afraid you would have to educate me concerning the threats that education and the new age beliefs present to Christianity....unless you are thinking about the threat to certain dogmas presented by modern science.

The Pope called for tight controls on the internet in order to prevent people from "getting confused" about religion or some such thing and everyone just smiles and thinks about what a moronic dinosaur he is. If the internet existed and was blamed for spreading the ideas of communism during the red scare there would have been all sorts of controls implemented.

Hmmmm? An interesting conjecture. How many newspapers/radio stations/magazine publications were shutdown during the "Red Scare?" Are you sure of your claim about the Pope? Could his remarks have been directed more at the pornography industry and its supposed deleterious effects on morality?

That second link dealing with the plight of the Buddhists in Vietnam is a good example of a religiously motivated backlash against oppression. Note how the Buddhists had realised what "christian tolerance" was all about and that is what caused them who "had no common interests" to cooperate. No surprise there, the legacy of christianity in colonial holdings was always shameful, brutal and ruthless.

Yup! I thought you might like that one. SVN was approximately 95% Budhist and 5% Christian(Catholic--French). However, that 5% controlled the entire nation, was corrupt and intolerant. Our western, Christian, culture blinded us to the true nature of the struggle...Nationalism first, Communism second.

That third link was also wrong I think, it addresses the lame duck argument that atheism = communism = Stalinism. There was no mention of propaganda techniques.

"Ya got me!" I'm sorry. I posted a link that I hoped would provide some discussion about myths, which would indicate that they are merely another form of propaganda. (I have a huge amount of reference material available on the subject of propaganda. Too much. I never know where to begin when addressing the subject with someone I have just met. It becomes sort of a feeling out type process. How's this one for a "little" more meat...especially the list at the bottom?

<a href="http://www.turnerlearning.com/cnn/coldwar/cw_prop.html" target="_blank">http://www.turnerlearning.com/cnn/coldwar/cw_prop.html</a>

That fourth link was good for a laugh and indeed an excellent piece of christian propaganda.

Yup! However, normally the best propaganda is built around some factual basis. Sifting the wheat from the chaff can be difficult.

An American theocracy would require a widespread misery of the kind that the Hitlers and Ayatollahs of the world need in order to flourish.

I suspect that we might have differing views of how a "modern" theocracy would come into being and function in order to stay in power/control. Have you ever seen the movie "The Handmaidens's Tale?" Terrible movie. Interesting story line.---Not long ago I was reading the Constitution of Malaysia. I found items in Arts. 3,4,8,11& 12(2) rather interesting, I found nothing about those who did not have a religious faith belief. Why not simply substitute Christian for Islam? Sometime you might be fascinated by some of our State Constitutions and what they might be amended to read if the 14th Amendment were repealed/modified to permit state rights religious choice. (The Ayatollahs are devout religious men just like the ministers/pastors/priests/rabbis/etc. are considered devout men/women in this religious land. Do you think that 85% happy-15% unhappy is a reasonable state of governmental performance for its citizens?)

Actually I see eye to eye with you on this indictment of Bush, everyone can see how desperate the Bush administration is now that they are on the brink of peace. I just think that it is a big stretch to see it as part of some sort of strategy to prepare America for the magical return of Jesus from the sky.

I agree! Oh, there may be a few true, religious, fruit loops who are waiting for the prophesied end days (Rapture...or whatever the flavor is this year); but I do not see them as the most current threat to my wonderful country.

Actually, I wasn't just referring to a few specific dynasties but to the entire hereditary elite as a whole.

The "Blue Bloods"/The 400/The DAR/etc. no longer carry the kind of political and social weight they once did. That was the point I was making. However, I will grant you that the Bush "Klan" is certainly attempting to reestablish a hereditary elite to compete with the Kennedys.

The last links regarding the activities of the right contain some real gems, but there was a lot of the typical right wing nationalism, homophobia and racism that they didn't even need the encouragement of Jesus for this time.

My concern is with how it is used to condition the general psyche.

The Republicans have thrown the fundies a few bones, I certainly agree, but whether they are under the control of the "Radical Messianic Right" is another question entirely, though.

I still recommend a review of this forum, since Bush took office, as an indication of why some folks have become so frustrated with what they have seen happening that they have elected to March on Washington. And here is a recommended reading source for insights into my youth education statement about Christian vs Communist indoctrination: "Two Worlds of Childhood: U.S. and U.S.S.R." Urie Bronfenbrenner, Pocket Book ed. 1973

And a few more items about the USSR relationship with religion: (I have about 2000 URL references and can never find the ones I want when I want them. ..so these will have to do for now. I Only cite two of the old Soviet Constitutions in order to stress just how much they are pattered after our own except for religion and private ownership. Of course they never practiced what they preached. But do we?)

<a href="http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH33/suther33.html" target="_blank">http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH33/suther33.html</a>

<a href="http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1918toc.html" target="_blank">http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1918toc.html</a>

<a href="http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html" target="_blank">http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html</a>

<a href="http://www.kosovo.com/history7.html" target="_blank">http://www.kosovo.com/history7.html</a>

(Extract: Orthodox Church History)
The Bolshevik government, because of its Marxist ideology, considered all religion as the "opium of the people." On January 20, 1918, it published a decree depriving the church of all legal rights, including that of owning property. The stipulations of the decree were difficult to enforce immediately, and the church remained a powerful social force for several years. The patriarch replied to the decree by excommunicating the "open or disguised enemies of Christ," without naming the government specifically. He also made pronouncements on political issues that he considered of moral importance: in March 1918 he condemned the peace of Brest-Litovsk that brought an unsatisfactory armistice between Russia and the Central Powers, and in October he addressed an "admonition" to Lenin, calling on him to proclaim an amnesty. Tikhon was careful, however, not to appear as a counterrevolutionary and in September 1919 called the faithful to refrain from supporting the Whites (anti-Communists) and to obey those decrees of the Soviet government that were not contrary to their Christian conscience.
The independence of the church suffered greatly after 1922. In February of that year, the government decreed the confiscation of all valuable objects preserved in the churches. The patriarch would have agreed to that measure if he had had the means to check on the government contention that all confiscated church property would be used to help the starving population on the Volga. The government refused all guarantees but supported a group of clergy who were ready to cooperate with it and to overthrow the patriarch. While Tikhon was under house arrest, this group took over his office and soon claimed the allegiance of a sizable proportion of bishops and clergy. This became known as the schism of the "Renovated" or "Living" Church, and it broke the internal unity and resistance of the church. Numerous bishops and clergy faithful to the patriarch were tried and executed, including the young and progressive metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd. The "Renovated" Church soon broke the universal discipline of Orthodoxy by admitting married priests to the episcopate and by permitting widowed priests to remarry.
Upon his release, Tikhon condemned the schismatics, and many clergy returned to his obedience. But he also published (presumably against his will) a declaration affirming that he "was not the enemy of the Soviet government" and dropped any public opposition to the authorities. Tikhon's attitude of conformism did not bring immediate results. His designated successors (after he died in 1925) were all arrested. In 1927 the "substitute locum tenens" (holder of the position) of the patriarchate, Metropolitan Sergius, pledged loyalty to the Soviet government. Nevertheless, under the rule of Joseph Stalin in the late 1920s and '30s, the church suffered a bloody persecution that claimed thousands of victims. By 1939 only three or four Orthodox bishops and 100 churches could officially function: the church was practically suppressed. The martyrdom of the Russian Church during the Soviet period was probably a most intensive and bloodthirsty persecution of the Church in its whole history.

(See the Holy New Martyrs of Russia Home Page)
A spectacular reversal of Stalin's policies occurred, however, during World War II. Sergius was elected patriarch in 1943 and the "Renovated" schism was ended. Under Sergius' successor, Patriarch Alexis (1945-70), the church was able to open 25,000 churches and the number of priests reached 33,000. But a new antireligious move was initiated by Prime Minister Nikita Khrushchev in 1959-64, reducing the number of open churches to less than 10,000. Patriarch Pimen was elected in 1971 following Alexis' death, and, although the church still commanded the loyalty of millions, its future remained uncertain.
After 70 years of repression and antireligious propaganda, however, the church experienced greater religious freedom in the late 1980s, culminating with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991
(End extract)

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

ybnormal · 09-27-2002, 10:51 AM

With charisma being the only prerequisite to being a world famous religous icon, these guys are just not equipped to deal with the extensively educated professionals who constitute the brains behind the government. These people train for years in negotiation and strategy, they aren't about to be outdone by the cranks, crackpots, kooks and loons who are expecting Jesus to descend from the clouds on a beam of light "any day now", nor from the showmen who profit from them.

"These people" (the brains behind the[this] government) are not being "outdone by the cranks", they are using the cranks (and the tens of millions of voters who listen to the cranks), to further their agenda. You said yourself that, "These people" train for years in negotiation and strategy...

You could all but forget that there is a ?God involved in all this, and concentrate wholly on the GOP/RR/Fundy politics of controlling morality as a local and national platform, and still have the same messages and propaganda to deal with. ?God is simply a strategic tool that "these people" use to further their agenda and garner more political control.

All "These" leaders use ?God for the exact same purpose, whether it be Robertson, Falwell, Hinn and the pope, OR, whether it be Bush, Lott, Osama and Hitler. Consider that, it is entirely possible that none of those men even believe in ?God... could you not still hear the exact same message from them for their political purposes? The strategic use itself of a ?God is identical in how it serves all those leaders individually and/or collectively. It matters not, whatever they actually may believe, anymore than it matters what any politician actually may believe... he must only be perceived to believe.

And I think folks are making a mistake in worrying about whether or not some grand theocracy can/will ever be established in the US... these folks will take what they can get, and keep pushing for more, forever... just look at the new kiddy missionaries in our public schools for example... I think of it as like a Tug-Of-War... with the entire purpose of each side being to continually take up the half inch of slack left in the rope in a fleeting moment of weakness by the other side... when's the last time you remember the RR allowing us to seize some of their slack? Name an area where they ever let up and allow us some slack?

And I ain't no scholar of history, but in my quest to keep things as simple as possible... it also does not matter whether Communists believe in a ?God or not. To those leaders, ANY authority figure other than the State itself would represent a threat to the State's leaders. Organized religion is competition. Isn't it argued that folks like Stalin and Mao more or less offered themselves up as the national God of choice? Didn't Mao write his own little Red bible for his people to follow? I see little difference in having the likenesses of Stalin, Mao or Saddam plastered everywhere, and having the likeness of Jesus plastered everywhere... the "likenesses" themselves all serve the same purpose... conformity and control.

Peace!

(Now I gotta go get a foot of water outta my other house that the Hurricane God Isidore left as a gift)

fromtheright · 09-29-2002, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:

2) The underlying cancer which eats away at US-ian democracy is the institution of organized, hierarchical authoritarian religions, whose mechanisms, rituals and absolutist teachings are inimicable to a free, independent, self-determining citizenry.

So exactly which absolutes do you find inimical? Or is the only valid, acceptable belief that there are no valid, acceptable beliefs?

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:

Hell, John Adams came damn close to turning this into a monarchy way back when.

And how did he come so close? By wanting to change the formal reference to the President as "His Highness" or whatever title it was he advocated (I don't have the reference handy)?

Also, how are Christian conservatives "openly hostile to and mocking of democracy", any more than some of our Founders, anyway?

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:

Organized religion divides the world into "us" and "them" -- those who believe the "right" faith and those who do not; That is contrary to the interests of US democracy to unify and unite.

Sounds like a little "us vs. them" going on in your post, galiel.

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:

Organized religion relies on the idea that God responds to certain rituals and that one can change the world merely by asking for help from a Divine being, however a particular religion specifies that; for democracy to work, its citizens need to believe that the their actions alone can make a difference.

So, for democracy to work, would you outlaw prayer? And if that is the belief, that one can change the world by merely "asking for help from a Divine being", how does that endanger democracy?

Also, does the hierarchy you described therefore rule out fundamentalist Protestants and apply only to Catholics, since Protestants believe in the priesthood of the believer?

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-24-2002, 06:11 PM	#21
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	So, after that refreshing if irrelevant interlude of Hoover-worship, back to the actual thesis, restated: An Accomodationist take-over of the Judiciary, coupled with a Christian Reconstructionist take-over of the Executive, coupled with a Creationist take-over of public education, spell grave danger to our democratic republic. The underlying cancer which eats away at US-ian democracy is the institution of organized, hierarchical authoritarian religions, whose mechanisms, rituals and absolutist teachings are inimicable to a free, independent, self-determining citizenry. Strict Separationism, strictly enforced, is essential to the survival of our republic. [ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

09-26-2002, 02:24 PM	#23
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Sorry, good neighbor! I could not disagree with you more. I realize that I am not providing you with empirical evidence for you to falsify. However, I have to wonder if you have been reading the topics in this forum for any length of time.

09-26-2002, 11:15 PM	#25
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	B.H. Another challenging post not easily or quickly answered without extensive background references. I will give it a go. The link you provided didn't seem to be the right one. That link invited you to use it to help confirm my contention about the similarities between Christianity and Communism. I can't remember ever reading this interpretation of events regarding the attitudes in the west towards the rise of communism, this doesn't mean you're wrong but it does make the claim extraordinary. I must assume that you are fully knowledgeable about the Joseph McCarthy years in this country. However, you may not be as aware of the onslaught of popular publications that found their way into the psyche of the average American following "Tail Gunner" Joe's fall from grace. Here are a few titles that would help to explain why I have said some of the things I have: 1. "Masters of Deceit" by J. Edgar Hoover, Henry Holt ed. 1958 2. "The Naked Communist" by W. Cleon Skousen, The Ensogn Publishing Company, 1958 3. "The Moulding of Communists: The Training of the Communist Cadre" by Frank S. Meyer, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1961 4. "None Dare Call It Treason" by John A. Stormer, Liberty Bell Press, 1964 Each of these books contain discussions on the Communist relationship/treatment of religion, specifically Christianity. I have a rather extensive library filled with similar references. However, one of the more accurate insights into what really happened in the old USSR, can be found in "Utopia in Power: The History of the Soviet Union from 1917 to the Present" by Mikhail Heller and Aleksandr M. Nekrich, (translated from the Russian by Phyllis B. Carlos), Summit Books, 1986. (This translation updates the original 1982 edition to March 11, 1985 and the election of Mikhail Gorbachev as the general secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.) The numerous pages of discussion about "churches" is some of the best I have uncovered for objectivity. So, when you find my claims "extraordinary" perhaps it will help if you know that I have done some "extraordinary" research and study in that area. Religious sentiment was certainly used to this end, but the fervor with which it was carried out was due to the fact that the theory of the ideology called for a complete overthrow of the status quo. Within whom was this status quo "fervor" the most evident? Many U.S. labor organizations had been calling for change for decades. Education and alternate new age beliefs present a large threat to christianity also but we don't see even a fraction of the effort expended combating these things. I'm afraid you would have to educate me concerning the threats that education and the new age beliefs present to Christianity....unless you are thinking about the threat to certain dogmas presented by modern science. The Pope called for tight controls on the internet in order to prevent people from "getting confused" about religion or some such thing and everyone just smiles and thinks about what a moronic dinosaur he is. If the internet existed and was blamed for spreading the ideas of communism during the red scare there would have been all sorts of controls implemented. Hmmmm? An interesting conjecture. How many newspapers/radio stations/magazine publications were shutdown during the "Red Scare?" Are you sure of your claim about the Pope? Could his remarks have been directed more at the pornography industry and its supposed deleterious effects on morality? That second link dealing with the plight of the Buddhists in Vietnam is a good example of a religiously motivated backlash against oppression. Note how the Buddhists had realised what "christian tolerance" was all about and that is what caused them who "had no common interests" to cooperate. No surprise there, the legacy of christianity in colonial holdings was always shameful, brutal and ruthless. Yup! I thought you might like that one. SVN was approximately 95% Budhist and 5% Christian(Catholic--French). However, that 5% controlled the entire nation, was corrupt and intolerant. Our western, Christian, culture blinded us to the true nature of the struggle...Nationalism first, Communism second. That third link was also wrong I think, it addresses the lame duck argument that atheism = communism = Stalinism. There was no mention of propaganda techniques. "Ya got me!" I'm sorry. I posted a link that I hoped would provide some discussion about myths, which would indicate that they are merely another form of propaganda. (I have a huge amount of reference material available on the subject of propaganda. Too much. I never know where to begin when addressing the subject with someone I have just met. It becomes sort of a feeling out type process. How's this one for a "little" more meat...especially the list at the bottom? <a href="http://www.turnerlearning.com/cnn/coldwar/cw_prop.html" target="_blank">http://www.turnerlearning.com/cnn/coldwar/cw_prop.html</a> That fourth link was good for a laugh and indeed an excellent piece of christian propaganda. Yup! However, normally the best propaganda is built around some factual basis. Sifting the wheat from the chaff can be difficult. An American theocracy would require a widespread misery of the kind that the Hitlers and Ayatollahs of the world need in order to flourish. I suspect that we might have differing views of how a "modern" theocracy would come into being and function in order to stay in power/control. Have you ever seen the movie "The Handmaidens's Tale?" Terrible movie. Interesting story line.---Not long ago I was reading the Constitution of Malaysia. I found items in Arts. 3,4,8,11& 12(2) rather interesting, I found nothing about those who did not have a religious faith belief. Why not simply substitute Christian for Islam? Sometime you might be fascinated by some of our State Constitutions and what they might be amended to read if the 14th Amendment were repealed/modified to permit state rights religious choice. (The Ayatollahs are devout religious men just like the ministers/pastors/priests/rabbis/etc. are considered devout men/women in this religious land. Do you think that 85% happy-15% unhappy is a reasonable state of governmental performance for its citizens?) Actually I see eye to eye with you on this indictment of Bush, everyone can see how desperate the Bush administration is now that they are on the brink of peace. I just think that it is a big stretch to see it as part of some sort of strategy to prepare America for the magical return of Jesus from the sky. I agree! Oh, there may be a few true, religious, fruit loops who are waiting for the prophesied end days (Rapture...or whatever the flavor is this year); but I do not see them as the most current threat to my wonderful country. Actually, I wasn't just referring to a few specific dynasties but to the entire hereditary elite as a whole. The "Blue Bloods"/The 400/The DAR/etc. no longer carry the kind of political and social weight they once did. That was the point I was making. However, I will grant you that the Bush "Klan" is certainly attempting to reestablish a hereditary elite to compete with the Kennedys. The last links regarding the activities of the right contain some real gems, but there was a lot of the typical right wing nationalism, homophobia and racism that they didn't even need the encouragement of Jesus for this time. My concern is with how it is used to condition the general psyche. The Republicans have thrown the fundies a few bones, I certainly agree, but whether they are under the control of the "Radical Messianic Right" is another question entirely, though. I still recommend a review of this forum, since Bush took office, as an indication of why some folks have become so frustrated with what they have seen happening that they have elected to March on Washington. And here is a recommended reading source for insights into my youth education statement about Christian vs Communist indoctrination: "Two Worlds of Childhood: U.S. and U.S.S.R." Urie Bronfenbrenner, Pocket Book ed. 1973 And a few more items about the USSR relationship with religion: (I have about 2000 URL references and can never find the ones I want when I want them. ..so these will have to do for now. I Only cite two of the old Soviet Constitutions in order to stress just how much they are pattered after our own except for religion and private ownership. Of course they never practiced what they preached. But do we?) <a href="http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH33/suther33.html" target="_blank">http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH33/suther33.html</a> <a href="http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1918toc.html" target="_blank">http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1918toc.html</a> <a href="http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html" target="_blank">http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html</a> <a href="http://www.kosovo.com/history7.html" target="_blank">http://www.kosovo.com/history7.html</a> (Extract: Orthodox Church History) The Bolshevik government, because of its Marxist ideology, considered all religion as the "opium of the people." On January 20, 1918, it published a decree depriving the church of all legal rights, including that of owning property. The stipulations of the decree were difficult to enforce immediately, and the church remained a powerful social force for several years. The patriarch replied to the decree by excommunicating the "open or disguised enemies of Christ," without naming the government specifically. He also made pronouncements on political issues that he considered of moral importance: in March 1918 he condemned the peace of Brest-Litovsk that brought an unsatisfactory armistice between Russia and the Central Powers, and in October he addressed an "admonition" to Lenin, calling on him to proclaim an amnesty. Tikhon was careful, however, not to appear as a counterrevolutionary and in September 1919 called the faithful to refrain from supporting the Whites (anti-Communists) and to obey those decrees of the Soviet government that were not contrary to their Christian conscience. The independence of the church suffered greatly after 1922. In February of that year, the government decreed the confiscation of all valuable objects preserved in the churches. The patriarch would have agreed to that measure if he had had the means to check on the government contention that all confiscated church property would be used to help the starving population on the Volga. The government refused all guarantees but supported a group of clergy who were ready to cooperate with it and to overthrow the patriarch. While Tikhon was under house arrest, this group took over his office and soon claimed the allegiance of a sizable proportion of bishops and clergy. This became known as the schism of the "Renovated" or "Living" Church, and it broke the internal unity and resistance of the church. Numerous bishops and clergy faithful to the patriarch were tried and executed, including the young and progressive metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd. The "Renovated" Church soon broke the universal discipline of Orthodoxy by admitting married priests to the episcopate and by permitting widowed priests to remarry. Upon his release, Tikhon condemned the schismatics, and many clergy returned to his obedience. But he also published (presumably against his will) a declaration affirming that he "was not the enemy of the Soviet government" and dropped any public opposition to the authorities. Tikhon's attitude of conformism did not bring immediate results. His designated successors (after he died in 1925) were all arrested. In 1927 the "substitute locum tenens" (holder of the position) of the patriarchate, Metropolitan Sergius, pledged loyalty to the Soviet government. Nevertheless, under the rule of Joseph Stalin in the late 1920s and '30s, the church suffered a bloody persecution that claimed thousands of victims. By 1939 only three or four Orthodox bishops and 100 churches could officially function: the church was practically suppressed. The martyrdom of the Russian Church during the Soviet period was probably a most intensive and bloodthirsty persecution of the Church in its whole history. (See the Holy New Martyrs of Russia Home Page) A spectacular reversal of Stalin's policies occurred, however, during World War II. Sergius was elected patriarch in 1943 and the "Renovated" schism was ended. Under Sergius' successor, Patriarch Alexis (1945-70), the church was able to open 25,000 churches and the number of priests reached 33,000. But a new antireligious move was initiated by Prime Minister Nikita Khrushchev in 1959-64, reducing the number of open churches to less than 10,000. Patriarch Pimen was elected in 1971 following Alexis' death, and, although the church still commanded the loyalty of millions, its future remained uncertain. After 70 years of repression and antireligious propaganda, however, the church experienced greater religious freedom in the late 1980s, culminating with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 (End extract) [ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

09-27-2002, 10:51 AM	#26
ybnormal Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 430	With charisma being the only prerequisite to being a world famous religous icon, these guys are just not equipped to deal with the extensively educated professionals who constitute the brains behind the government. These people train for years in negotiation and strategy, they aren't about to be outdone by the cranks, crackpots, kooks and loons who are expecting Jesus to descend from the clouds on a beam of light "any day now", nor from the showmen who profit from them. "These people" (the brains behind the[this] government) are not being "outdone by the cranks", they are using the cranks (and the tens of millions of voters who listen to the cranks), to further their agenda. You said yourself that, "These people" train for years in negotiation and strategy... You could all but forget that there is a ?God involved in all this, and concentrate wholly on the GOP/RR/Fundy politics of controlling morality as a local and national platform, and still have the same messages and propaganda to deal with. ?God is simply a strategic tool that "these people" use to further their agenda and garner more political control. All "These" leaders use ?God for the exact same purpose, whether it be Robertson, Falwell, Hinn and the pope, OR, whether it be Bush, Lott, Osama and Hitler. Consider that, it is entirely possible that none of those men even believe in ?God... could you not still hear the exact same message from them for their political purposes? The strategic use itself of a ?God is identical in how it serves all those leaders individually and/or collectively. It matters not, whatever they actually may believe, anymore than it matters what any politician actually may believe... he must only be perceived to believe. And I think folks are making a mistake in worrying about whether or not some grand theocracy can/will ever be established in the US... these folks will take what they can get, and keep pushing for more, forever... just look at the new kiddy missionaries in our public schools for example... I think of it as like a Tug-Of-War... with the entire purpose of each side being to continually take up the half inch of slack left in the rope in a fleeting moment of weakness by the other side... when's the last time you remember the RR allowing us to seize some of their slack? Name an area where they ever let up and allow us some slack? And I ain't no scholar of history, but in my quest to keep things as simple as possible... it also does not matter whether Communists believe in a ?God or not. To those leaders, ANY authority figure other than the State itself would represent a threat to the State's leaders. Organized religion is competition. Isn't it argued that folks like Stalin and Mao more or less offered themselves up as the national God of choice? Didn't Mao write his own little Red bible for his people to follow? I see little difference in having the likenesses of Stalin, Mao or Saddam plastered everywhere, and having the likeness of Jesus plastered everywhere... the "likenesses" themselves all serve the same purpose... conformity and control. Peace! (Now I gotta go get a foot of water outta my other house that the Hurricane God Isidore left as a gift)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.