Posts
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Founding Fathers and Christianity (or, stop using just another pathetic excuse to try to make me behave like you do)
Often when debating our rights to freedom of religion, I run into people who identify with conservative Christianity who want to explain to me what the founding fathers intended. I've heard that the founding fathers never intended this to be anything other than a Christian nation. I've heard that the founding fathers were all Christians.
Like most things, it's just people repeating what they've been told by their parents, their preachers, or their Fox News talking heads. When you really start to read what Presidents wrote in letters, autobiographies, and speeches, you get a whole different perspective. Let me introduce you to the tip of the iceberg.
George Washington trusted others of different faiths, so much so that he allowed them to be his employees, and interact at his home, with his family. This included Muslims. When hiring workmen for Mount Vernon, he wrote to his agent, "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."
He also wrote in a letter to a Jewish community, "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
Thomas Jefferson could not have been more clear when he was writing to establish religious freedom for the state of Virginia:
"that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty"
Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions. It tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage. Which at once destroys all religious liberty. Pretty powerful stuff.
James Madison was also very clear on the issue of civil rights and religion, saying "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed." This was later incorporated into the 1st Amendment.
Were all of the founding fathers Christians? Would they pass the test by conservative Christians today? Did they believe in the Bible as the literal word of God? Benjamin Franklin, though appreciative of the moral values one can learn from Christian teachings, wasn't even sure that Jesus Christ was Divine: "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: "
As it turns out, many of the Founding Fathers were Deists. And Deists aren't even Christians, per se. Note how this definition even lumps Islam in there with Christianity as a faith-based religion, for those who think Islam is not an actual belief system.
Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings.
Deism was a religious philosophy in common currency in colonial times, and some Founding Fathers (most notably Thomas Paine, who was an explicit proponent of it, and Benjamin Franklin, who spoke of it in his Autobiography) are identified more or less with this system. Nevertheless, several early presidents are sometimes identified as holding deist tenets, though there is no president who identified himself as a deist. Although George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Tyler, and Abraham Lincoln are often identified as having some degree of deistic beliefs,[6] most of these identifications are controversial; Washington in particular maintained a life-long pattern of church membership and attendance, and there is conflicting testimony from those who knew him.
Another example of a founding father who probably wouldn't pass the litmus test of today's conservative Christians:, John Quincy Adams left detailed statements of his beliefs, showing that he distanced himself from the branch of his church.
You see, radical right-wing conservative Christianity was never a part of the founding father's plan. They wanted true freedom of religion and expression. It is a more recent phenomenon that has led to conservative Christians thinking that they are somehow entitled to 1) describe themselves as the "vast majority" of Americans, even when it's clear they are not 2) pass laws regulating the behavior of everyone in the country based on their religious values and 3) use hate-based scare tactics to try to limit the civil liberties of everyone not just like them.
People who belong to this group are as free to hate as the next person. Just stop blaming it on 9/11, or Barack Obama, or whatever, and start calling a spade a spade: if I don't worship like you, you don't think I'm a worthy American.
Like most things, it's just people repeating what they've been told by their parents, their preachers, or their Fox News talking heads. When you really start to read what Presidents wrote in letters, autobiographies, and speeches, you get a whole different perspective. Let me introduce you to the tip of the iceberg.
George Washington trusted others of different faiths, so much so that he allowed them to be his employees, and interact at his home, with his family. This included Muslims. When hiring workmen for Mount Vernon, he wrote to his agent, "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."
He also wrote in a letter to a Jewish community, "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
Thomas Jefferson could not have been more clear when he was writing to establish religious freedom for the state of Virginia:
"that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty"
Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions. It tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage. Which at once destroys all religious liberty. Pretty powerful stuff.
James Madison was also very clear on the issue of civil rights and religion, saying "the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed." This was later incorporated into the 1st Amendment.
Were all of the founding fathers Christians? Would they pass the test by conservative Christians today? Did they believe in the Bible as the literal word of God? Benjamin Franklin, though appreciative of the moral values one can learn from Christian teachings, wasn't even sure that Jesus Christ was Divine: "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: "
As it turns out, many of the Founding Fathers were Deists. And Deists aren't even Christians, per se. Note how this definition even lumps Islam in there with Christianity as a faith-based religion, for those who think Islam is not an actual belief system.
Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings.
Deism was a religious philosophy in common currency in colonial times, and some Founding Fathers (most notably Thomas Paine, who was an explicit proponent of it, and Benjamin Franklin, who spoke of it in his Autobiography) are identified more or less with this system. Nevertheless, several early presidents are sometimes identified as holding deist tenets, though there is no president who identified himself as a deist. Although George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Tyler, and Abraham Lincoln are often identified as having some degree of deistic beliefs,[6] most of these identifications are controversial; Washington in particular maintained a life-long pattern of church membership and attendance, and there is conflicting testimony from those who knew him.
Another example of a founding father who probably wouldn't pass the litmus test of today's conservative Christians:, John Quincy Adams left detailed statements of his beliefs, showing that he distanced himself from the branch of his church.
You see, radical right-wing conservative Christianity was never a part of the founding father's plan. They wanted true freedom of religion and expression. It is a more recent phenomenon that has led to conservative Christians thinking that they are somehow entitled to 1) describe themselves as the "vast majority" of Americans, even when it's clear they are not 2) pass laws regulating the behavior of everyone in the country based on their religious values and 3) use hate-based scare tactics to try to limit the civil liberties of everyone not just like them.
People who belong to this group are as free to hate as the next person. Just stop blaming it on 9/11, or Barack Obama, or whatever, and start calling a spade a spade: if I don't worship like you, you don't think I'm a worthy American.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Conservatives and Women, An Odd Combination
I'll admit, I'm baffled by the women of the Tea Party. Even some women Republicans. The relationship between women and conservative politics never ceases to amaze me. And here's why:
The blatant sexist language used by the men of these parties whenever they meet a strong, independent woman with whom they do not agree. When the best you can do to disagree with Hillary Clinton is call her a bitch (Glenn Beck), you are scraping the bottom of the intellectual barrel. You are saying there is nothing to really criticize about this person but her femaleness. It's not just Beck who's said it. And Conservative women, why would you stand for this within your own political parties? This degrading a woman by calling her a female dog. Or they go a step further, and start calling women cunts. You know, the folks who brought us the ridiculous Supreme Court ruling that corporations have freedom of speech? Citizens United? That group began as an anti-Hillary group called Citizens United, Not Timid. CUNT. Conservatives use a derogatory word for female anatomy to describe the woman herself. And there are still women out there who choose to align themselves with these men.
Visit the recent comments by Lindsey Graham and others, referring to how women "drop" babies. Comparing female immigrants to farm animals, such as how a cow "drops" a calf. I'm not wanting to start an immigration reform debate here. I'm not even leveling a comment on whether some people come here to have a baby intentionally. I'm just talking about the crude, derogatory language used by conservatives, in this case elected officials who represent other conservatives, to describe women who are doing things they don't like or agree with.
Add this on to conservatives, including conservative women, who want to traumatize other women for choosing to legally terminate their pregnancy. The conservatives of the Missouri Senate want to force women to listen to a fetal heartbeat and view ultrasounds before they make the decision to have an abortion. In other words, they've presented all of their arguments for why they think it is wrong, and if a woman still doesn't agree with their philosophical position and wants to act of her own accord with relation to her own body and health, they still want to traumatize the woman into doing what they want her to do. It's intrusive for any woman to have to worry about what the Missouri Senate thinks when she goes to the doctor. And their are no procedures for males that require this type of government scrutiny or involvement.
For many conservatives, women who speak up are out of place. Women who do what they want are uppity. Women who don't just tow the party line and help the party, in this case the Tea Party or the Republican party, get ahead, are bitches. Cunts. Not as worthy of the same personal dignity and respect as their male counterparts. And some women still allow themselves to be pulled into these movements. Sarah Palin, I'm talking to you. John McCain pulled you in like an anatomically correct doll to combat the Hillary factor, and it was a total disaster. And when it didn't work, who had all the fingers pointed at her?
Women need to think harder. Process more. Consider the language. Value yourselves. Stop hanging out with people who use language like "bitch" and "cunt" every time they have a tantrum or disagreement. Either abandon the party(ies) that treat you this way, or demand more from your male counterparts.
The blatant sexist language used by the men of these parties whenever they meet a strong, independent woman with whom they do not agree. When the best you can do to disagree with Hillary Clinton is call her a bitch (Glenn Beck), you are scraping the bottom of the intellectual barrel. You are saying there is nothing to really criticize about this person but her femaleness. It's not just Beck who's said it. And Conservative women, why would you stand for this within your own political parties? This degrading a woman by calling her a female dog. Or they go a step further, and start calling women cunts. You know, the folks who brought us the ridiculous Supreme Court ruling that corporations have freedom of speech? Citizens United? That group began as an anti-Hillary group called Citizens United, Not Timid. CUNT. Conservatives use a derogatory word for female anatomy to describe the woman herself. And there are still women out there who choose to align themselves with these men.
Visit the recent comments by Lindsey Graham and others, referring to how women "drop" babies. Comparing female immigrants to farm animals, such as how a cow "drops" a calf. I'm not wanting to start an immigration reform debate here. I'm not even leveling a comment on whether some people come here to have a baby intentionally. I'm just talking about the crude, derogatory language used by conservatives, in this case elected officials who represent other conservatives, to describe women who are doing things they don't like or agree with.
Add this on to conservatives, including conservative women, who want to traumatize other women for choosing to legally terminate their pregnancy. The conservatives of the Missouri Senate want to force women to listen to a fetal heartbeat and view ultrasounds before they make the decision to have an abortion. In other words, they've presented all of their arguments for why they think it is wrong, and if a woman still doesn't agree with their philosophical position and wants to act of her own accord with relation to her own body and health, they still want to traumatize the woman into doing what they want her to do. It's intrusive for any woman to have to worry about what the Missouri Senate thinks when she goes to the doctor. And their are no procedures for males that require this type of government scrutiny or involvement.
For many conservatives, women who speak up are out of place. Women who do what they want are uppity. Women who don't just tow the party line and help the party, in this case the Tea Party or the Republican party, get ahead, are bitches. Cunts. Not as worthy of the same personal dignity and respect as their male counterparts. And some women still allow themselves to be pulled into these movements. Sarah Palin, I'm talking to you. John McCain pulled you in like an anatomically correct doll to combat the Hillary factor, and it was a total disaster. And when it didn't work, who had all the fingers pointed at her?
Women need to think harder. Process more. Consider the language. Value yourselves. Stop hanging out with people who use language like "bitch" and "cunt" every time they have a tantrum or disagreement. Either abandon the party(ies) that treat you this way, or demand more from your male counterparts.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
CPAC: Getting Out the Big Dick (again)
Is Dick Cheney still the best these people can do?
"Hey, jackass, get your government off my freedom!"?????
Are these people for real? You're talking about a bunch of people who want to tell me
1. Which religion's morals should govern my legislation.
2. What I can or cannot do with my body in the privacy of my physician's office (but only if I'm female, it doesn't apply to men).
3. Who I can or cannot marry.
4. Whether or not my friends can openly talk about who they love if they are serving our country in the military.
5. That everyone is not entitled to equal access to healthcare as a basic human right when we live in a country where state-of-the-art healthcare is available.
6. That women are not entitled to equal pay or equal work.
Need I go on? Get my government off your freedom? Get your hate-based prejudiced value system out of my government!
"Hey, jackass, get your government off my freedom!"?????
Are these people for real? You're talking about a bunch of people who want to tell me
1. Which religion's morals should govern my legislation.
2. What I can or cannot do with my body in the privacy of my physician's office (but only if I'm female, it doesn't apply to men).
3. Who I can or cannot marry.
4. Whether or not my friends can openly talk about who they love if they are serving our country in the military.
5. That everyone is not entitled to equal access to healthcare as a basic human right when we live in a country where state-of-the-art healthcare is available.
6. That women are not entitled to equal pay or equal work.
Need I go on? Get my government off your freedom? Get your hate-based prejudiced value system out of my government!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
