Reed, like the Reconstructionists, wants to move America closer to being a theocracy. He would like to put women who seek abortions, and doctors who provide them, in jail. He would like to put the people who produce and consume porn in jail. And those are just the folks who we KNOW he’d like to jail. There’s always that gap between what a scumbag will admit to, and what he really wants. After all, did Bush admit to wanting to invade Iraq.
Abortion was illegal in the '50s, in most places, too, and we weren’t a theocracy then. And I’ve never heard Reed say he wanted to outlaw porn. But, even if he did, it’s still not a good comparison. Have you ever read what the Reconstructionalists want?
“Idolatry is thus not only punishable by law as socially detrimental, it is in fact a capital offense. It constitutes treason to the King or Sovereign, to Almighty God.”-R.J. Rushdoony.
About the sermon on the Mount
“The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers–the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel”-David Chilton
True, although I noticed one of the local Episcopal churches changed their sign to say “Anglican” (I wonder if it’s over the split about homosexuality).
I admit I was wrong about that and Catholicism being a majority, however, I don’t think that these Reconstructionists have nearly the man power they’d need. Doesn’t mean I don’t find them damned frightening.
Yeah, more or less. While Siege is right on the money – in Scotland and the U.S., and a couple of other small national churches as well, the local national church of the Anglican Communion uses “Episcopal” rather than “Anglican” as its distinguishing nominal adjective.
But schismatics claiming to preserve orthodoxy have had a tendency to use “Anglican” to distinguish their small splinter churches from Episcopalianism. They are not in communion with Canterbury, have bishops of questionable validity, and in many cases a large ego and a bitter smallmindedness.
People hear what they want to hear – a small group with some money behind it can make a significant impact on attitudes of people who don’t think things through.
I can’t take these folks seriously, and I’d like to ask the OP what specifically he sees this group being able to accomplish. We just had Judge Moore removed from the bench for refusing to get rid of the 10 Commandment monument in the courthouse. While I thoroughly agree with the action of reomoving the judge, his transgression was one of the mildest ones I can think of wrt the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. What could this Reconstructionist group do that wouldn’t be worse than the actions of Judge Moore, and that would NOT be undone by our legislative or judicial system?
Are you sure about that?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states_of_america#Religion:
Of course, maybe it’s a matter of definition. America might be considered “post-Christian” in the sense that most of these self-identified Christians might not have been considered properly Christians at all by those of earlier generations. From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1996), pp. 278-279:
I didn’t quite follow that. What?
America’s Protestant majority is fading, University of Chicago research shows:
This is not to say there isn’t a vocal backlash from those who are being demographically demoted, but time does not seem to be on the side of the Religious Right in the United States.
Actually, Reconstructionists generally don’t have a problem with alcohol. After all, there’s really nothing in the Bible like a blanket condemnation of drinking; see John 2:1-11. Teetotaling is more of a Baptist and Methodist thing; the Reconstructionists, being from a Calvinist (Presbyterian or Reformed) background tend to sneer at such “un-Biblical pietism”. In fact, one of the signs you may have a Reconstructionist on your hands is if you’ve got an extremely socially and politically conservative, Biblically inerrantist Christian who likes to go on about how much he enjoys fine cigars and single-malt Scotch.
That would certainly be the thing to look out for. The thing is, I do think the demographics and the direction of social change in this country are strongly against the Recons. It’s probably no accident that “Scary Gary” North has predicted three of the last zero collapses of Western civilization. (Most notoriously, North claimed that the Y2K bug was going to bring about a new Dark Age. Before that, it was AIDS and I think in the '80’s he was predicting nuclear war with the Soviet Union.) Recons, unlike your typical Christian premillenialist fundamentalists, are postmillenial, meaning they think Christians must and will establish a godly order to rule for the “millennium” first, then Jesus will come back. However, while North and other Recons may sneer at the Christian pop culture notion that the End of History is imminent, the only way they’re likely to gain power is through some sort of wholescale collapse of the social order; which I think at least North deep down realizes.
As for the tinfoil hat notion, I would recommend Frederick Clarkson’s book Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy, which discusses the Recons along with some other theocratic movements in America (such as the Moonies). One of the points he makes is the need to have a balanced view of the more sinister elements of the Religious Right; as he puts it, between seeing them as “a juggernaut or a joke”. I think the Recons will never gain power, but I think the reason they will never gain power is because informed citizens will always be ready to point out just what it is they stand for and where they want to take this country.
I referred to the atheists in the US.
My impression is that there are quite a lot of people who have no message at “the message” of any religion. Among them are also quite a lot who feel an aversion and even contempt for anything religious.
So I was wondering: Suppose such extreme “Christians” like the ones the OP refers to gain enough influence to give it a serious try to push their views onto the US population. Supose they even get as far as getting influence or representation in the government or in its lobbyist circles.
Suppose one day this extremist Christianity can even push through the candidacy of a governor candidate or even a presidential candidate.
Don’t you think that above all others who feel they need to stop this madness, the atheist will be the first to raise their voices?
Don’t you think that first of all those atheists who now maybe don’t bother to vote will get out of their houses to prevent such lunatic to get a grip on the country?
Possibly. Yet that is not how it looks like to the outside world.
As long as you have canditates for political office and especially presidential canditates (and presidents) who must at least pay lip service to the Christian religion in order to survive politically, the US can not be sold as a “secular nation” to the world.
The fact that someone like Bush - who utters the word God every few sentences whenever he speaks in public - got a second term largely thanks to the votes of his Christian supporters speaks volumes on its own.
Salaam. A
Alde, the point you persistently miss in your ongoing attempts to (deliberately?) misunderstand the secular nature of the U.S. is that the Christian influence is much more a cultural artifact than a theological position.
Bush’s constant references to God are partly designed to appeal to a particular faction in the country (and, perhaps, from some actual beliefs). However, the majority of the country tolerates such speech rather than embracing it.
Bush’s “Faith Based Intiatiatives” never went anywhere. The same laws governing the participation of religious organizations in government programs that are in use, today, were in use under Clinton. Bush has simply put a happy face on old practices to make it look (to his core supporters) as though he did something new for religion, but the rest of the country (as supported by the Congress, legislatures, and courts) has not gone along with any change in direction.
The “defense of marriage” acts that passed in so many states, recently, are a hodge-podge of different laws that each take different approaches to what they mean, with no overarching religious message involved. (Review the Same-Sex-Marriage threads on this board to see how many people are simply against the cultural implications of using the word marriage to indicate a joining of two men or two women with no religious significance, at all.)
Bush’s (1%) win did rely on an appeal to a certain religious mentality, but if religion was the defining factor for the whole country, then he should have had an overwhelming victory, rather than the mobilization of a core electorate to give him a tiny edge.
It is probably true that among countries with culturally Christian backgrounds, a larger percentage of people in the U.S. still hold to their Christianity. There is certainly a vocal minority who would like to keep more of their religious cultural trafitions enshrined in law. This may look to the uninformed outsider as though the U.S. is not secular. However, until we begin actively pursuing religious laws, those perceptions are clearly based on uninformed misapprehensions. Note that the subjects of this thread will never get divorce outlawed in a nation with a nearly 50% rate of divorce. Laws prohibiting the sale of liquor on Sunday have been steadily crumbling for 60 years. There are no new laws proposed to outlaw retail sales on Sunday. You are confusing the trappings of culture with the core of government and you consistently get it wrong.
I am not sure that I would be willing to take your personal views as those “of the outside world,” particularly as you have failed to demonstrate that you understand the distinctions within American culture throughout these many months of discussion.
Tom,
- I explicitely refer to the exsistence of a not-so-vocal yet clearly present amount of atheists in the USA
- I mention the Christian religion which politicians feel that he/she must at least pay lip service to = this is referring to both the religious and the cultural mainstream which is, if you like it or not, stil showered with and based on Christian “values”. that hence are as such engrained in subconcience of the society.
- I mention the habits of US presidents to mention “God” whenever they find a space in a text wher they can fit the word into their rethoric. This habit serves a clear purpose (in case of Bush it also seems to serve his own Messianic Delusion).
I do not see any connection between my post and your reply.
But if you think you can sell the USA as a completely secular nation to the world, be my guest and start lecturing that no president ever shall need to court the Christian electorate anymore in order to stand a chance to even get nominated for the presidential race.
I wish you the besdt of luck since sadly enough you have the facts of the day clearly against you.
A few other difficulties to sell the US’s “complete secularity” : The USA even has the word God printed on its money. (And do I need to remind you about the whole commotion surrounding the mentioning of God in the famous “pledge of alliance”?)
Salaam. A
I’ve gotta agree with Aldebaran on this one, Tom~. Until we reach a point when a candidate’s religion, or lack thereof, is ignored then it’s difficult to see us as a completely secular nation. If banging the Jesus drum is enough to gain a marjority, then we aren’t totally secular. You object that Bush’s narrow win demonstrates that religion played a small part in the election. But the problem with that position is the fact that Kerry, too, is a Christian. I wonder what the outcome would be if an avowed athiest or Buddhist ran for president. Do you doubt Christianity would play a bigger role then?
I particularly disagree with your dismissal of the same-sex marriage bans as religious based. None of these laws are secularly motivated. All objections are religious based, with the exception of those folks who want to eliminate marriage entirely from government purview. Which culture do you think the “cultural significance” objections are based on? It’s Christian culture. Secular culture has no bone to pick with SSM.
Well, in our area I see lots of individuals who believe in biblical inerrancy and the idea that our laws should reflect the bible getting elected to town boards, school boards, clerk of courts, etc. Having power, or at least responsibility, on a very local level seems to be a way to get certain things accomplished. (Perhaps) as a result, the local high schools still have graduation prayers led by local clergy, 90% of the populace seems to like it that way, and when informed that such activities are considered unconstitutional, the response is “you can’t stop us”.
It’s not high profile, with state judges or senators sounding off on it. It’s very grassroots.
Regarding SSM, I think you are mistaken. I’m sure that there is a religious background to the issue, but an awful lot of people do, indeed, react to the simple use of the word marriage for same sex couples, rather than holding a religious opposition to same sex couples simply living together. (And once in the culture, homophobia carries a life of its own, just as racism and other forms of prejudice have done.)
There is a difference between the residual Christian culture carrying over into day-to-day life and Alde’s persistent attempts to portray the U.S. society as religious and not secular.
I do not deny the Christian influence on U.S. culture. I do deny that U.S. society is monolithically Christian or religious. (For that matter, Christianity, itself, is hardly monolithic, a point that Aldebaran has tried to ignore on numerous occasions. Even ignorant Americans can see that the Sunni/Shi’ite disputes in Iraq have a bearing on that country’s history and future, yet Alde wants to pretend that an Evangelical Protestant viewpoint in the U.S. would have no trouble dictating all U.S. policy, even if it began looking to impose sanctions on Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Mormons. Do you really believe that is possible?)
My claim was never that the U.S. is wholly secular. I only note that seeing the U.S. as “Christian” is overly simplistic, and that there is more that is secular (laws, media, entertainment, buying practices) than there is that is Christian.
If we compare the U.S. to Turkey or Indonesia, then the U.S. is “Christian” where the other two are “Muslim,” but we are far from a theocracy and we are moving further from that point all the time.
This is actually your weakest point. The presence of atheists in the U.S. is miniscule, (far smaller than appear on this board). What the U.S. generally has in abundance are people who are nominally Christian, but who are basically irreligious or non-religious, people for whom religion plays little more than a nominal role in letting them identify themselves as part of some group–a group with whom they increasingly do not interact–people who are secular.
Just a point of clarification. Has the SCotUS actually ruled on the constitutionality of prayer at High School graduation ceremonies? I thought we were still hashing that one out. If it has been so ruled, there is indeed something you can do to stop them
Lee v. Weisman (1992)
On June 24th 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 Court Decision that the graduation prayer during school graduation violated the Establishment Clause.
In my area, challenges to this practice based on this decision have generally been dismissed because the challenger did not have “standing”. That is, it was not their child graduating. Therefore the court declined to take action. So the practice continues. A number of parents have stated privately that they disapprove of it, but are unwilling to take on the community over the issue.
Which -as it was very clearly explained to me in an other thread - has everything to do with the idea that “marriage” is a religious institution.
This idea is very much supported the confusing practice in the USA that religious clergy who take care of the religious marriage also receive the power to make that religious ritual at the same time count for a legal union.
Once you get rid of that habit, making the disconnection between religious marriage and civil marriage is easy enough, isn’t it?
No. I said that it does not come across as a secular nation to the outside world. You can argue against that all you like, it does not change that the fact that the USA does not come across as a secular nation when you look at it from the outside (and when you visit it coming from the outside).
No, I don’t.
I can only say about this that I noticed long ago is that you developped a habit of portraying mine for what they are not. Well, that is your problem, it can’t become mine.
Once again: Read my posts instead of interpreting them for what they are not. Those on on this thread alone contradict your blurred view and your persistence to misportray what I say.
Salaam. A
Just as you claim (without evidence) that “the world” perceives the U.S. as not secular, so I perceive your muddling of American religious views over the course of many months of posting, even when every once in a while you do take the time to admit that your overall views are not supported by the evidence.
I will say that your recent posts show much more awareness of the many strands of the American reality than your earliest posts, but you still seem to look on the U.S. as very nearly monolithic in culture.
I think you make here a strange “comparison” and I don’t see quite what the first element has to do with the second (which is wrong as you are projecting just the same prejudice you always project.)
No I don’t.
Yet as is the case with every “culture” one can detect particularities that are more or less supported and shared by the mainstream of the population and which makes that the US has a “culture”.
Or do you claim that the USA has no culture and that the USA hence is just like all the rest of the world (even when only speaking of the so called “Western” world), and that this world is then also just like the USA?
Salaam. A
Of course, the U.S. has a culture (comprising multiple sub-cultures) that is strongly rooted in several of the Christian traditions. I simply note that the very presence of such multiple contributing cultures has compelled the U.S. to become pluralistic and more (not wholly) secular. When you make the claims that the U.S. is not secular (or you claim without presenting any evidence) that the rest of the world perceives that the U.S. is not at all secular, then you seem to be projecting your beliefs.
Having spoken for the world, can you provide statements from other people of the world who share your view that the U.S. is religious? bin Laden condemned the U.S. for its godlessness, yet you insist that “the world” sees it the way you do. I’m just curious who these other people are who share your belief who make up “the world.”
For what it’s worth, the vast majority of my non-American friends and acquaintances have commented, more than once, on the strange pervasiveness of American religiosity. (I’ve seen this comment from people originating in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Iceland, and Canada.) Many of them have cited statistics noting that the percentage of people who consider themselves religious in the United States is significantly higher than anywhere else in the West, pointed, and gone, basically, “What the heck?”
A (Welsh, now living in Montreal) friend once joked that she suspected that the UK’s practice of state religion served as a vaccination against more virulent forms.