| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2003 01:24:21 AM |
| Object: |
Religious McCarthyism |
Interesting article on religion in our government I found today:
http://www.liberalslant.com/bst100103-2.htm
---
Religious McCarthyismı
By: Bruce S. Ticker - 10/01/03
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont correctly dubs it ³religious
McCarthyism.²
His colleague from Illinois, Richard J. Durbin, says it for
all of us, if a bit understated, ³It is shameful, it is disgusting, it
is unacceptable.²
Conflict over religion, such a twisted issue in American
politics, reached fever pitch in the last few weeks in the hallowed
halls of the Senate as members who represent millions of Americans
uttered some of the most offensive, hypocritical and stupid words I
have ever heard from people in positions of responsibility.
Democrats like Leahy and Durbin complained that they were
targeted as anti-Catholic for opposing George W. Bushıs nomination of
Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr. to a federal appeals
court due to his public policy positions that parallel his religious
beliefs, as a Catholic. Senate Democrats employed the filibuster rule
on Friday, Aug. 1, to block Pryorıs confirmation.
Republicans claim that because Pryor adheres to his religious
beliefs, and that that will possibly affect future rulings, he is
being discriminated against because he is Catholic.
Democrats shoot back that they are concerned about how his
personal views dominate such issues as abortion, the death penalty,
environmental regulation and individual rights, according to The
Washington Post.
Pryorıs GOP backers tend to omit two features of the debate.
For a devout Catholic, Pryor favors the death penalty, which the
church opposes. When a conservative group aired provocative
advertisements in Maine and Rhode Island to pressure three Republican
senators, it happens that one of those senators is Catholic.
So hypocrisy lives.
Republicans are trying to have it both ways: Impose their
religious beliefs on the rest of us while accusing us of religious
bigotry.
It should be needless to say, but in America we are supposed
to respect any personıs right to practice a religion or not practice
at all. Once anyone attempts to press their beliefs on others, they
are crossing personal boundaries and in effect undermining all other
religions.
They also trivialize legitimate concerns about instances of
religious bigotry when they use it as an issue.
Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who represents
metechnically speaking, sounds ludicrous when he frames the issue
asdisqualifying from public life ³anybody who believes in church and
faith,² as he is quoted in the Post. That would be a neat trick since
more than 80 percent of the population has been estimated to worship
as Christians.
Then Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama denounces a ³radical
secularization trend in America thatıs gone too far.²
Huh? Sessions is in effect demanding that atheists prove God
does not exist. The onus should be on religionists to prove that God
exists. Since I worship in a religion which claims there is one God, I
hope I am never called upon to prove there is a God. I cannot possibly
achieve that. However, it would be fun to watch Sessions and his
friends attempt to prove that God does exist.
That same day, the Vatican issued a 12-page set of guidelines
urging all Catholic lawmakers and others to protect the family
structure by defeating any legislation facilitating gay marriage and
adoption by gays and lesbians, The New York Times reported.
In fact, the document declares, ³There are absolutely no
grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or
even remotely analogous to Godıs plan for marriage and familyMarriage
is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.²
Whatıs wrong with this picture? The documentıs writers donıt
even live in the United States, so they are trying to tell the people
of a sovereign nation which is not theirs how to live their lives.
This is an institution which has protected some of the worst kinds of
criminals, child sex abusers. Not to mention that the church saves a
fortune in tax breaks in the United States.
They are more than feeding the libel that the Pope dictates
policies to the president. They are transforming that libel into fact.
President Kennedy never allowed his faith to determine policy, but
Bush, a Protestant, is doing more for the Catholic church today than
was ever feared about Kennedy.
In Philadelphia, Eagles football president Joe Banner got a
radio host suspended after the host, Angelo Cataldi, tore into Banner
and team owner Jeff Lurie for barring fans from bringing their own
food to games at the teamıs new stadium, Lincoln Financial Field. In
the process, Cataldi suggested that if the team picks the security
squad then the guards will probably wear swastikas, according to The
Philadelphia Inquirer. Banner ran with that crack because, being
Jewish, he took that as a slur.
Maybe it was, but Banner has a track record for finding the
flimsiest excuse to stifle critics like Cataldi.
This means that even the most fair-minded people will be less
inclined to take other accusations of anti-Semitism seriously. Thatıs
exactly what Santorum, who is Catholic, and fellow senators who are
Protestant are doing to those who make legitimate complaints of
anti-Catholic bigotry.
Too bad the Constitution does not require common sense for
members of Congress.
---
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious McCarthyism |
02 Oct 2003 06:55:49 AM |
|
|
Probably only an atheist can be a fair judge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill, The Avender" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious McCarthyism |
02 Oct 2003 10:01:58 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 2 Oct 2003 07:55:49 -0400, "Witziges Rätsel"
<zer@roer.com> wrote:
Probably only an atheist can be a fair judge.
I wouldn't say that. What I would say is that to be a fair judge, one
must be able to keep one's religious ideologies separate from one's
interpretation of the law. When it comes to atheists, that needs to
be put in a slightly different way, but the same idea applies. If an
atheist judge deliberately interprets the law in such a way as to
thwart religion regardless of established legal theory, that judge is
also unethical and should be disbarred. A theist judge needs to be
able to rule in favor of an atheist who is right every bit as much as
an atheist judge needs to be able to rule in favor of a theist who is
right.
There are occasionally judicial mandates that incidentally benefit one
religious stance or another. But unless the reasoning behind the
decision was knowingly "bent" to produce a decision favorable to the
judge's religious views, that's not really "unfair". Of course, there
are plenty of "thin lines" and "gray areas" all over the map. But
that's why we have a "process" - to get those things ironed out.
--
L8r,
Avender
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
Common is the man who can be fashioned into a
reflection of the era in which he lives.
Rare is the man who can take the era in which
he lives, and fashion it into a reflection
of himself.
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious McCarthyism |
03 Oct 2003 12:46:47 AM |
|
|
In article <blh4j8$n70$1@news.chatlink.com>,
"Witziges Rätsel" <zer@roer.com> wrote:
Probably only an atheist can be a fair judge.
There are tolerant believers, but in the current political climate,
they are mostly considered 'too liberal' to get appointed.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious McCarthyism |
02 Oct 2003 04:00:33 AM |
|
|
In article <jhachm-40095A.23242101102003@central.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote:
Interesting article on religion in our government I found today:
http://www.liberalslant.com/bst100103-2.htm
---
Religious McCarthyismı
By: Bruce S. Ticker - 10/01/03
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont correctly dubs it ³religious
McCarthyism.²
His colleague from Illinois, Richard J. Durbin, says it for
all of us, if a bit understated, ³It is shameful, it is disgusting, it
is unacceptable.²
Conflict over religion, such a twisted issue in American
politics, reached fever pitch in the last few weeks in the hallowed
halls of the Senate as members who represent millions of Americans
uttered some of the most offensive, hypocritical and stupid words I
have ever heard from people in positions of responsibility.
Democrats like Leahy and Durbin complained that they were
targeted as anti-Catholic for opposing George W. Bushıs nomination of
Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr. to a federal appeals
court due to his public policy positions that parallel his religious
beliefs, as a Catholic. Senate Democrats employed the filibuster rule
on Friday, Aug. 1, to block Pryorıs confirmation.
huh. Well, that's just part of the trend. It's of a piece with the Ten
Commandments fights. Everyone in office gets told to jump when the 10c
bandwagon rolls through, and these clowns in Congress politely turn to
the demagogues and ask how high?
Every day, I get a little more disgusted with this nation. I have the
right of British citizenship... I may have to use it soon.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious McCarthyism |
03 Oct 2003 12:44:48 AM |
|
|
In article
<nemo0037-30114D.05003302102003@news05.east.earthlink.net>,
*Nemo* <nemo0037@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
In article <jhachm-40095A.23242101102003@central.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote:
Interesting article on religion in our government I found today:
http://www.liberalslant.com/bst100103-2.htm
---
Religious McCarthyismı
By: Bruce S. Ticker - 10/01/03
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont correctly dubs it ³religious
McCarthyism.²
His colleague from Illinois, Richard J. Durbin, says it for
all of us, if a bit understated, ³It is shameful, it is disgusting, it
is unacceptable.²
Conflict over religion, such a twisted issue in American
politics, reached fever pitch in the last few weeks in the hallowed
halls of the Senate as members who represent millions of Americans
uttered some of the most offensive, hypocritical and stupid words I
have ever heard from people in positions of responsibility.
Democrats like Leahy and Durbin complained that they were
targeted as anti-Catholic for opposing George W. Bushıs nomination of
Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr. to a federal appeals
court due to his public policy positions that parallel his religious
beliefs, as a Catholic. Senate Democrats employed the filibuster rule
on Friday, Aug. 1, to block Pryorıs confirmation.
huh. Well, that's just part of the trend. It's of a piece with the Ten
Commandments fights. Everyone in office gets told to jump when the 10c
bandwagon rolls through, and these clowns in Congress politely turn to
the demagogues and ask how high?
This is what disturbs me. Principles, schminciples, all they want is
to see how much power and money they can grab and do whatever it takes
to get reelected. Always keep your eye on the polls and your finger in
the air to see which the way the wind's blowing. Yech!
Every day, I get a little more disgusted with this nation. I have the
right of British citizenship... I may have to use it soon.
Hm. If you do, maybe you could adopt me? :-)
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
