2008-09-12 10:13![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
digitaldiscipline
digitaldisciplineAm you elitizt? (courtesy of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
geekers)
[USF Ppli Sci Professor Susan] MacManus says it's interesting that as our nation has become more educated, we've actually seen a decrease in tolerance [towards public figures being religious]. She says the religious divides included issues surrounding Mitt Romney's Mormonism, Barack Obama's supposed Muslim roots, Mike Huckabee's Baptist preacher background and now Sarah Palin's evangelical leanings.
Separation of church and state, motherfucker, do you grok it?
I could go on at great, inflammatory length on this theme, but will be succinct: The more educated you get, the less water conventional religion tends to hold, and the less trust one will place in a public official who is openly embracing it. This will probably not make me popular, and will draw disappointed looks from friends to whom religion is important, but I cannot in good faith trust the running of a city, state, our country to someone who openly embraces counter-factual belief systems or takes advice from their imaginary friend(s).
geekers)[USF Ppli Sci Professor Susan] MacManus says it's interesting that as our nation has become more educated, we've actually seen a decrease in tolerance [towards public figures being religious]. She says the religious divides included issues surrounding Mitt Romney's Mormonism, Barack Obama's supposed Muslim roots, Mike Huckabee's Baptist preacher background and now Sarah Palin's evangelical leanings.
Separation of church and state, motherfucker, do you grok it?
I could go on at great, inflammatory length on this theme, but will be succinct: The more educated you get, the less water conventional religion tends to hold, and the less trust one will place in a public official who is openly embracing it. This will probably not make me popular, and will draw disappointed looks from friends to whom religion is important, but I cannot in good faith trust the running of a city, state, our country to someone who openly embraces counter-factual belief systems or takes advice from their imaginary friend(s).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I am pretty much in total agreement with you, however, this statement makes me curious about who you are planning to vote for given our choices this year...and pretty much every year.
Are you distinguishing Obama because he's at the very least acknowledged that atheists have a right to and do exist while talking about the greatness of god? That the separation of church and state is a vital principle, even while using his faith to further his political campaign and agenda? http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaonFaith.pdf
Obama does a much better job than most politicians of making these distinctions, but I am still supporting him in spite of a faith that makes me very uncomfortable for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the preachings of his pastor.
(no subject)
The fact that he's come out and said anything non-derogatory about atheists puts him a few steps ahead of most of the political talking heads, who openly embrace their faith (or, like Palin and Bush, tend to evangelize).
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
barf.
Re: barf.
Re: barf.
I'm a guy and I'm offended by them because they try to take over my brain. If I had a uterus they'd try for both. Either way, ugh.
Re: barf.
Keep that brain safe!!
Re: barf.
*must keep analogous thoughts about the epididymis in check* The brain isn't all I want safe, heheheh. Tho
(no subject)
Hear, hear! On the one hand, I fully embrace the individual's right to believe any damned ridiculous thing they want (I certainly have my own share). On the other, I want to know that the person responsible for executive decisions for everything from efficient and safe sewage treatment at the local level to whether or not to press the Big Red Nuke Button habitually refers to the best available rational information. Publicly acknowledged blind faith in the tenets of any religion based solely on the authority of (select one) [daddy, priest, minister, mullah, guru, inspired word of god] does not give me much confidence in their general rational abilities.
Re: your examples -
Mitt Romney's Mormonism - here I let my bigotry against idiots show. Have you read the Book of Mormon? It's an exercise in "make the burning in my brain stop NOW!" The copy on my shelf has a convenient little intro that explains the Smith backstory. If you pulled a con today and tried to use something remotely like this backstory to defend yourself in court, the judge would still be laughing at you as you're hauled out with a conviction. I've read a lot of ridiculous BS in my years and this is amongst the most ridiculous and BS-iest. Then there's the content. Take a guy of Smith's caliber. Have him and his cronies/family members fabricate "inspired" wisdom literature with only a feeble understanding of KJV English. The result? The BOM. Flip through at random and read the tortured word of "God". As literature, it's simply appalling. And I can't help but think Smith was more than a bit cocksure of his ability to dupe people with this crap when one of the prominent names he makes up is Moroni.
*facepalm* Nobody who buys this particular flavor of BS has any business leading or representing people who don't buy it. People who don't buy it have no business supporting someone who does. As for the believers? Sure, believe away and lead amongst yourselves. Don't expect tolerance for the goofiest religion next to Scientology yet to be invented, though.
I don't care about Obama's alleged religious past. Pity so many Americans do, though. I *am* troubled by his politically-motivated affiliation with a church while remaining conveniently ignorant of what its pastor says. Obama handled the backlash as diplomatically (where diplomacy = dishonesty with tact) as a person could, but he got off that hook far too easily. Would someone else get away with, "Oh, I was a member of the Aryan Nation for years because it was expected of me and I paid lip service and sent my money, but I never paid attention to what they said or did"?
Huckabee and Southern Baptists - I *was* a Southern Baptist. This I can at least speak to from limited personal experience. I can now sum up my complaints against that fringe sect of nutjobs simply...belief not only in the inspired word of God, but that the inspired word of god is literally true. Don't even try to ask them what language it's literally true in. It'll give you aneurysms. Don't ask them to resolve differences between translations. Don't ask them how, for an anti-papist bunch, they embrace the Gregorian calendar and get their own sabbath wrong but insist its adhered to, right down to Blue Laws when they could get away with it. Remember, their sabbath is *you* sabbath. And don't ask them on which day god created hell. *Really* don't ask them how they're so good at judging and condemning when their own religious leader told them not to. Of all the groups most likely to wish for a christian-flavored sharia, this is the one, methinks.
Palin's personal religious nuttiness? I'm of two minds...pentacostalism, while I'm adamantly opposed to its evangelism, is closest (in christianity) to my own personal nutjobbery. Here's it's a case of "their gnosis doesn't play nice with my gnosis". Of course, phrased like that it would only give them conniptions.
Hope ya don't mind that I picked up the length and inflammation ;)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
About 50 years ago a member of a religious minority stood for the presidency, and had to repeatedly counter claims that his religion made him unsuitable for the office.
John F. Kennedy, because he was a Catholic not a Protestant.
Nowadays even a Mormon is considered a possible candidate for the job.
50 years ago neither party would have been seen dead with one of those wierdo's in a senior position.
(no subject)
(no subject)
*hrump*
Re: *hrump*
(no subject)
(no subject)
It's much like the people who argue against gay marriage "because the bible says so". Uh, that's YOUR bible, not mine. If you can't put that book down long enough to read AND UNDERSTAND the central tenet of law in this country, then pack up your Jesus and go home.
(no subject)
(no subject)
I too think that believers in religion are idiots, but that’s not the source of my ire toward them and their belief system. Rather my antagonism stems from the fact that believers (pardon the generalization) are constantly trying to legislate their brand of morality and integrate their religious ideology into the public education system.
To me, that’s not intolerance toward religion on my part. That’s me reacting to intolerance and abuse imposed by religion. All things equal, I’m fine with them but they’re not fine with me.
I cringe at politicians who strongly embrace religion because such people have demonstrated time and time again that their religious views influence how they design and pursue policy.
I get the point of the article, but I think it should be rephrased. I think that educated people tend to be more tolerant toward difference. But tolerant people in turn get really pissed off when intolerance infringes on the lives of others. I think that’s an important distinction.
(no subject)
(no subject)
The first amendment to the Constitution goes "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In other words, it's written to keep the state outta the church. It doesn't really say anything about keeping the church out of the state.
That being said - I do think you get better results from irrigating your crops than you do praying for rain. I think the more we understand the forces of nature, the sillier we look saying "We got this rain (over the whole valley, not just my land) because I asked an invisible man in the sky for it."