PDA

View Full Version : Faith in our future?



Jolie Rouge
04-26-2005, 07:56 PM
If you read the headlines, you run the risk of thinking we are headed toward a theocracy.

Alarmists note that George W. Bush invokes his religious faith in many speeches and that his positions on abortion, embryonic-stem-cell research and faith-based charities are informed by it. They decry the law Congress passed to provide federal judicial review in the Terri Schiavo case. Vocal American Catholics bewail the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI.

Blogger Andrew Sullivan called it "a full-scale assault" on liberal Catholics. One of his correspondents called the new pope "this headstrong, self-assured, anti-democratic and egotistical little man." We all look abroad at the violence done by Islamist fanatics and wonder, without any clear way of being sure, how far such doctrines have taken hold among the world's 1.2 billion Muslims. We note, more reassuringly but perhaps with some wariness, that most Iraqi voters seem to have followed the lead of the country's most powerful cleric, Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

But whether the United States is on its way to becoming a theocracy is actually a silly question. No religion is going to impose laws on an unwilling Congress or the people of this country. And we have long lived comfortably with a few trappings of religion in the public space, such as "In God We Trust" or "God save this honorable court." The real question is whether strong religious belief is on the rise in America and the world. Fifty years ago, secular liberals were confident that education, urbanization and science would lead people to renounce religion. That seems to have happened, if you confine your gaze to Europe, Canada and American university faculty clubs.


But this movement has not been as benign as expected: The secular faiths of fascism and communism destroyed millions of lives before they were extinguished.

America has not moved in the expected direction. In fact, just the opposite. Economist Robert Fogel's "The Fourth Great Awakening" argues that we've been in the midst of a religious revival since the 1950s, in which, as in previous revivals, "the evangelical churches represented the leading edge of an ideological and political response to accumulated technological and social changes that undermined the received culture."

In the 2004 presidential exit poll, 74 percent of voters described themselves as churchgoers, 23 percent as said they were evangelical or born-again Protestants and 10 percent said they had no religion.

This is in line with longer trends. Roger Finke and Rodney Stark in "The Churching of America 1776-1990" used careful quantitative analysis to show that in America's free marketplace of ideas, the religions and sects that have grown are those that make serious demands on members. Those that accommodate to secular critics and make few demands decline in numbers. The Roman Catholic Church continues to grow in America; the Assemblies of God and the Mormon Church grow even faster. But mainline Protestant denominations, which spend much effort ordaining gay bishops or urging disinvestment in Israel, lose members.

Around the world, we see continuing secularism in Europe but healthy competition among faiths elsewhere. In Latin America, the competitors are Catholicism (even though shorn of liberation theology by John Paul II) and evangelical Protestantism. In Africa, competitors are Catholicism, Protestantism and Islam. In East Asia, Christianity has grown in Korea and, underground, in China. In South Asia, the competition for 500 years has been between Hinduism and Islam.

Who inherits the future? In free societies, each generation makes its own religious choices, but people tend to follow the faith of their parents. Secular Europe, with below-replacement birthrates among non-Muslims, could be headed for a Muslim future, as historian Niall Ferguson suggests.

In the United States, as pointed out by Phillip Longman in "The Empty Cradle" and Ben Wattenberg in "Fewer," birth rates are above replacement level largely because of immigrants. But, as Longman notes, religious people have more children than seculars. Those who believe in "family values" are more likely to have families.

This doesn't mean we're headed to a theocracy: America is too diverse and freedom-loving for that. But it does mean that we're probably not headed to the predominantly secular society that liberals predicted half a century ago and that Europe has now embraced.



-- Michael Barone

Jolie Rouge
04-26-2005, 08:09 PM
Hating Bush
John Leo

Political rhetoric, left and right, seems steadily worse.

"Kill Bush" T-shirts and bags were offered for sale last week on the Internet, then quickly removed after protests. In Chicago, a college art show featured a series of mock postage stamps showing Bush with a gun to his head. The unhinged left has long flirted with the theme of killing presidents, from the 1992 Manhattan posters urging the murder of the first President Bush to the "that pig Bush must die" message on a fringe website last week.

Columnist Michelle Malkin offered some acid comments on the "pro-assassination left," citing anti-Bush slogans such as "We support our troops, when they shoot their officers" and "Bush is the disease. Death is the cure."

Such attacks, of course, are not limited to the left. As the Washington Times reports, Judge George Greer is swimming in "a sea of death threats" since his rulings that resulted in the feeding tube's being removed from Terri Schiavo. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a startling sentence last week: " I think we have been on borrowed time," a reference to the possibility of more violence against judges. Thomas and Justice Anthony Kennedy told a House appropriations subcommittee that they want more police protection in front of the Supreme Court.


This puts angry anti-court commentary in a different light.

Surely it is time for Rep. Tom DeLay and his allies to withdraw their inflammatory remarks about judges before some suggestible person decides to act on their statements. Sen. John Cornyn's comments on the judiciary were more ambiguous than the way the media played them. His rambling speech contained several qualifiers, but the core paragraph can be interpreted to mean that judges are bringing violence on themselves. He should explain clearly what he meant.

DeLay has apologized for his statement on the Schiavo rulings (an "act of medical terrorism"); Pat Robertson's "judicial murder" comment calls for the same. And so does the remark by the Rev. Flip Benham, director of Operation Rescue, that the courts have become a tool "in the hands of the devil."


Nazi rhetoric.

Most of us, alas, are upset by vicious rhetoric only when it is aimed at our side. The extraordinary Bush-is-a-Nazi rhetoric of the antiwar marches and the presidential campaign drew very little criticism from the responsible left, just as the repeated accusations that President Clinton is a murderer, perhaps a multiple murderer, didn't ruffle many people on the responsible right. The anti-Clinton vitriol has subsided, partly because the Bush family has reached out to Bill Clinton. But the Nazi references to Bush and Republicans rumble right along, showing up in art shows, columns, and letters to the editor. Sen. Robert Byrd recently said that the "nuclear option" to break any Democratic filibuster on judges was reminiscent of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Last October, Byrd said that the Bush tactics that got us into Iraq reminded him of Hermann Goering. During the presidential campaign, comedian Janeane Garofalo referred to the Bush administration as "the 43rd Reich."

Victor Davis Hanson writes that if you type "Bush + Hitler" into a Google search, the result is 1,350,000 hits. Virtually every major figure in the Bush administration has been compared to some Nazi official or other. Bush has been likened to Hannibal Lecter, Ted Bundy, Mussolini, Napoleon, Nero, Caligula, and the Japanese warlords of World War II. Howard Dean, who says he hates Republicans and considers them evil, recently introduced a Communist theme, charging that Republicans "are essentially the best propaganda machine since Lenin."

We may be into another big anti-Clinton assault, this one aimed at Hillary Rodham Clinton. Last week a breathless item on the Drudge Report said that an anti-Hillary book, out next September, will be the equivalent of the Swift Boat Veterans campaign against John Kerry and may well derail her chances to be president. This is a cringe-making prospect. Do we really need yet another major assault on a prominent politician, or can we spend some time discussing actual issues?


We have reached the point where much political debate consists of insults and name-calling, every attack is likely to be called a "lynching," and tired expressions such as "institutional terrorism," "institutional racism," and "intellectual McCarthyism" are supposed to be taken as real arguments.

Political polarization is an obvious cause. But so is the democratization of the media, particularly the arrival of the Internet and big-time talk radio, which allow all of us to say whatever we like, no matter how crude. Mail to columnists is much more abusive than it was a few years ago. Inarticulate people, many of them celebrities, are finding it hard to make their cases without lapsing into abuse. So political discussion more and more consists of angry feelings instead of rational argument. Our political rhetoric is routinely awful. Let's work to clean it up.

schsa
04-27-2005, 04:56 AM
Bush is no where near Hitler. But he is polarised the county. And his approval ratings are falling. Churches abroad are loosing more members now than ever. And if an exit poll asked if people were going to church, chances are most of the people they were talking to were older Americans.

Church and state were never meant to mix together. Bush has overstepped his boundaries.

llbriteyes
04-27-2005, 04:57 AM
Let me point out where you're wrong.

1. The Left is not "unhinged." We see clearly what is happening in this country.

2. We ARE headed toward a theocracy. If you watch CSPAN, you'll see religion trying to be legislated EVERYDAY. Sen. Frist talks about about it all the time. You also have people like Jerry Falwell creating "colleges" whose sole intent is to turn out lawyers to change the laws in this country to represent the SPECIFIC religion of Christianity. Seeing this actually happen is NOT silly. I assure you.

3. The Judiciary... Republicans in the Senate want to eliminate the filibuster. Checks and balances. They want to control all three houses, in effect turning this FREE country into a theocratic Taliban oopps... I mean democracy.

4. You said, "Economist Robert Fogel's "The Fourth Great Awakening" argues that we've been in the midst of a religious revival since the 1950s, in which, as in previous revivals, "the evangelical churches represented the leading edge of an ideological and political response to accumulated technological and social changes that undermined the received culture." This pretty much explains it.

5. To compare ANY of this, on either side as Nazism is stupid. Bush is not a Nazi. He doesn't have what it takes to mobilize an entire country. (this is a joke, it is only a joke. Don't panic). Assassinating the president is a crime. Anyone who even tries it is put away. Death threats are for the stupid. We may not LIKE what's going on in our government, but you can believe it will change in 2006 and 2008.

6. When the supreme court ruled the 2000 election in favor of Bush, much to my dismay, you didn't see Democrats busting out windows and causing riots, now did you? AND... Bush didn't even win the popular vote. How's that for restraint? Democrats just know what comes around, goes around.

And here's something that really pisses me off. First, not ALL repuplicans are religious. And guess what else? Not ALL democrats are secular. There are people who are in the middle of the road. We're not moving until this government changes. Read the second ammendment. Every person (at least in the state of Ohio) over the age of 18 is part of the militia. If it comes down to it, watch out.

Linda

Jolie Rouge
04-28-2005, 05:22 AM
Let me point out where you're wrong.


YOUR opinion ....


Mine may differ; and the fact is we might both be right to some degree.

Jolie Rouge
07-06-2012, 10:36 AM
.
Atheist S.E. Cupp: ‘I Would Never Vote For an Atheist President’
By Jason Howerton | The Blaze – 14 hrs ago.

For those of you who don’t know, The Blaze’s S.E. Cupp is an atheist. She doesn’t exactly wear it on her sleeve but she never tries to hide from it either.

Nonetheless, Cupp made a fascinating personal revelation Thursday as she spoke with her co-hosts on MSNBC’s “The Cycle” about the always important role of religion in presidential elections.

The panel was discussing GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith and how it has effected his presidential ambitions so far when co-host Krystal Ball threw a curve ball and asked, “What if he were atheist?”

Cupp responded almost instantly, saying Romney would have “no chance” running as an atheist candidate.

“And you know what? I would never vote for an atheist president. Ever,” Cupp added, clearly surprising the rest of her panel.

“You’re a self-loathing atheist,” Salon’s Steve Kornacki joked.

MSNBC The Cycle

It may seem peculiar that someone who classifies herself as an atheist would say that atheism has no place in the Oval Office, but as always, Cupp put her bold statement into context with a concise and thought-provoking explanation.

“Because I do not think that someone who represents 5 to 10 percent of the population should be representing and thinking that everyone else in the world is crazy, but me,” Cupp said, pointing to her chest.

When asked by Ball what would be wrong with someone like herself representing Christians as president, Cupp said she “appreciates” religion and explained why the person she votes for needs to have faith in something bigger than himself.

“The other part of it — I like that there is a check, OK? That there‘s a person in the office that doesn’t think he’s bigger than the state,” she continued. “I like religion being a check and knowing that my president goes home every night addressing someone above him and not thinking all the power resides right here… Atheists don’t have that.”


http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-e-cupp-never-vote-atheist-president-025658535.html

Watch the segment below via MSNBC and weigh in on Cupp’s comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYx5u5VHr3E

Jolie Rouge
06-25-2013, 05:27 PM
DOJ Defunds Youth Programs that Reference God
June 25, 2013 - By Todd Starnes

A Louisiana lawman is livid over the federal government’s decision to cut off funds for two programs to help troubled young people, all, he says, because he refused to sign a pledge to bar prayer or any mention of God at their meetings.

Julian Whittington, the sheriff of Bossier Parish, La., told Fox News the Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights defunded $30,000 for their Young Marines chapter as well as a youth diversion program. Federal officials objected to a voluntary student-led prayer in the department’s youth diversion program and an oath recited by the Young Marines that mentions God, according to Whittington, who blasted what he considers the government’s “aggression and infringement of our religious freedoms.”

“We were informed that these are unacceptable, inherently religious activities and the Department of Justice would not be able to fund the programs if it continued,” Whittington told Fox News. “They wanted a letter from me stating that I would no longer have voluntary prayer and I would also have to remove ‘God’ from the Young Marine’s oath.”

The DOJ and the Office of Civil Rights are aware of the controversy but did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Fox News obtained an email written by an attorney for the DOJ’s Office of Civil Rights raised questions about references to God and church along with the phrase “love of God.” The attorney also raised questions about one of the five elements of the Young Marines Creed – “Keep myself clean in mind by attending the church of my faith.”

The attorney advised that DOJ rules prohibit “funding on inherently religious activities, such as prayer, religious instruction and proselytization. “And any religious activities must be kept separate in time or location from DOJ-funded activities,” the attorney wrote.

The sheriff was told he would not be given any money unless he wrote a letter pledging not to pray or use the word “God.”

“I flat said, ‘It’s not going to happen,’” he said. “Enough is enough. This is the United States of America – and the idea that the mere mention of God or voluntary prayer is prohibited is ridiculous.”

The sheriff said the programs have been in place for at least ten years and until now – the prayers and the mention of God have never been an issue.

The Young Marine’s oath that the DOJ took issue with states:



“From this day forward,
I sincerely promise,
I will set an example
for all other youth to follow
and I shall never do anything
that would bring disgrace or dishonor
upon God,
my Country
and its flag,
my parents,
myself
or the Young Marines.

These I will honor
and respect
in a manner
that will reflect credit
upon them
and myself.

Semper Fidelis.”

Ironically, both the U.S. military’s commissioning oath and enlistment oath include the phrase, “So help me God.”

Whittington said he could not understand why the federal government would take issue with the oath or the prayers. “Right here in good, old Bossier Parish, Louisiana in the United States of America – something as basic as voluntary prayer and the mere mention of God is offensive and prohibited (by the government),” he said.

Both youth programs have been hailed as a successful way to reach at-risk young people. Since 2002 more than 1,000 young people have graduated from the program, directed by a Bossier Parish deputy who is a former U.S. Marine.

The federal money had been used to purchase uniforms and supplies for the kids. But Whittington said it’s not about the money. “The money is not the issue,” he said. “It’s the principle of the matter. What is going on here? Who is dictating what can or can’t be said in Bossier Parish?”

The sheriff fired off a letter to La. Gov. Bobby Jindal defending his decision not to compromise. “This is an appalling situation where someone at the Department of Justice, Office of Civil Rights in Washington, D.C. could, would and did go to great lengths to prevent even the mere mention of God in any way to the youth in these programs,” he wrote.

While Jindal has not yet weighed in, Rep. John Fleming, R-La. told Fox News he is very concerned about the defunding. “There is a very wide effort coming out of the administration that seeks to stamp out freedom of expressions – particularly religion and especially freedom of Christian expression,” Fleming said. “They are willing to throw the youth overboard and remove the funding just in the name of making this an atheist, agnostic, secular organization.”

Fleming said his office is looking into the matter and vowed to “lock arms” with the Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office. “They (DOJ) don’t want anything to have any sort of religious support – even down to prayer,” Fleming said. “It’s sad and it’s inconsistent with the intentions of the framers of the Constitution.”

The Young Marines was founded in 1958 and has more than 10,000 members in 300 chapters. The organization focuses on character-building, leadership and promotes a drug-free lifestyle. Mike Kessler, the national executive director of Young Marines, told Fox News that he was disappointed to hear about the controversy surrounding the Bossier Parish chapter. “I’m saddened the DOJ felt it necessary to pull whatever funding they provide because clearly when a sheriff’s office takes the kids in – they are looking at the program as a way to help kids who might otherwise get into trouble,” he said.

Kessler said Young Marines does not promote a specific religious faith. He said he could not fathom why the DOJ would take issue with portions of their creed that mentions God and attending the church of their faith. “That’s such a generic statement,” he said. “We’re not talking about the local Baptist church. We’re not talking about a specific religion. I don’t understand how much more generic we can be.”

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/doj-defunds-young-marines-chapter-that-referenced-god.html

Jolie Rouge
03-07-2014, 05:07 PM
Atheist Group Sues to Remove Cross from 9/11 Memorial
Posted on March 7 2014

http://www.conservative-daily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/RTR2P75P.jpg

Every now and then, I read a story that just makes me shake my head in disgust. The group American Atheists is suing the 9/11 Memorial Museum, asking the Federal Court to remove a cross made out of steel beams that was found in the rubble of the World Trade Center.

The group is arguing that since the private museum is leasing the land from the Federal government, it should be barred from displaying religious imagery. The Atheist group claims now that the first amendment applies not only to the government, but also to private organizations! This couldn't be farther from the truth!

The first amendment reads that Congress (or more loosely, the government) shall make no law that establishes a State religion. The American Atheists argue that displaying an artifact found in the rubble of the World Trade Center that resembles a cross is unconstitutional because it gives preferential treatment to one religion.

Instead of standing behind the museum and protecting the monument that brought solace to so many first responders, the American Atheists are trying to tear it down! The more you dive into the Atheists' lawsuit, the more ridiculous it becomes. In addition to arguing that the cross violates their first amendment rights, the American Atheists also argue that the mere sight of a cross is making their plaintiffs physically sick. “The plaintiffs, and each of them, are suffering, and will continue to suffer damages, both physical and emotional, from the existence of the challenged cross,” the lawsuit American Atheists v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey explains. “Named plaintiffs have suffered …. dyspepsia [aka indigestion], symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack."

Let me get this straight… The group of people that deny God, religion, or the religious significance of the Cross have suddenly fallen ill simply from looking at the monument? That sounds pretty ironic, doesn't it?

The truth is that this actually represents a recent development in the way first amendment cases are fought. Instead of arguing that they were "offended" by the cross, which they certainly were, the American Atheists are claiming to have suffered mental and bodily injury as well. The American Atheists, like so many liberal groups around the country, are trying to fundamentally redefine the first amendment. Instead of offering the people the freedom of religion, the American Atheists argue that the constitution should provide people with freedom from religion.

For some reason, many Americans have been conditioned to believe that they have a right to go through life without ever being offended. At the center of this movement is the push to ban all religious symbolism on the basis that it "offends" non-believers. Well, actually, the American Atheists contend that an inanimate object is causing them physical pain and mental anguish as well…

When will this stop? Do the American Atheists realize what they are protesting? Do they realize that they are suing the memorial museum that honors the sacrifice of the 9/11 victims and first responders?

When Frank Silecchian found the 20-foot tall piece of steel in the rubble of the World Trade Center, he didn't find a religious shrine. He found a symbol of hope amidst hopelessness and a symbol of life surrounded by death and seemingly endless suffering. Not only is the cross a physical piece of the World Trade Center, which alone warrants its inclusion in the museum and should put a stop to this frivolous lawsuit, but it is a memorial to the resolve and the determination of all of the first responders who worked day after day at Ground Zero.

The Ground Zero Cross is a piece of history. It tells the story of the response to the worst terrorist attack in world history. The fact that the American Atheists and other non-Christian religious organizations are actively fighting to have the cross removed is an abomination.

Last year, a Federal District judge found in favor of the museum, ruling that the cross "demonstrates how those at Ground Zero coped with the devastation they witnessed and did not constitute a government endorsement of one particular religion."

The American Atheists appealed the ruling and now the case is before the Liberal 2nd Circuit Court in New York. I would like to believe that the 2nd Circuit would respect the rights of the victims' families and understand the true meaning of the bill of rights, but this is the same court that ruled it was constitutional for New York City to charge residents $340 just to be able to purchase a pistol…

We cannot afford to hope that the Courts realize the historical significance of this 9/11 relic. If people are allowed to claim to receive headaches and indigestion from "offensive" religious images, when will the lawsuits stop? It is long overdue for Congress to affirm that the First Amendment does not provide a freedom from religion. Otherwise, we will continue to see these frivolous attacks that attempt to redefine our history and our culture!

I am tired of walking on egg shells, afraid to offend the delicate sensibilities of people who disagree with us! I am tired of worrying about any liability for voicing my belief and practicing my faith. Congress must pass legislation to protect Americans from these frivolous lawsuits trying to silence speech and prevent the free practice of religion!

http://www.conservative-daily.com/2014/03/07/atheist-group-sues-to-remove-cross-from-911-memorial/

Jolie Rouge
03-07-2014, 05:18 PM
Let me point out where you're wrong.

3. The Judiciary... Republicans in the Senate want to eliminate the filibuster. Checks and balances. They want to control all three houses, in effect turning this FREE country into a theocratic Taliban oopps... I mean democracy.

So when the DEMS control the House and try to eliminate the filibuster ... that is okay ? When the POTUS is a DEM and says he has a phone and a pen to "fundamentally change" our country ... that is okay ?? If it has an (R) it must be "bad" but if it has a (D) it must be "good" ?