Posts Tagged “religionist”

Andrew Sullivan, journalist and pioneering blogger whose views mostly have been in support of conservatism in the U.S., has decided to divest himself from the Right — and for reasons similar to my own for having done so. Earlier this week, he wrote:

It’s an odd formulation in some ways as “the right” is not really a single entity. But in so far as it means the dominant mode of discourse among the institutions and blogs and magazines and newspapers and journals that support the GOP, Charles Johnson is absolutely right in my view to get off that wagon for the reasons has has stated. Read his testament. It is full of emotion, but also of honesty.

In case you don’t know, Charles Johnson is another pioneering blogger, the man behind the Right-leaning blog Little Green Footballs. Sullivan goes on to say:

The relationship of a writer to a party or movement is, of course, open to discussion. I understand the point that Jonah Goldberg makes that politics is not about pure intellectual individualism; it requires understanding power, its organization and the actual choices that real politics demands. You can hold certain principles inviolate and yet also be prepared to back politicians or administrations that violate them because it’s better than the actual alternatives at hand. I also understand the emotional need to have a default party position, other things being equal. But there has to come a point at which a movement or party so abandons core principles or degenerates into such a rhetorical septic system that you have to take a stand. It seems to me that now is a critical time for more people whose principles lie broadly on the center-right to do so – against the conservative degeneracy in front of us.

Unfortunately, I saw conservatism’s “degeneracy” years ago and broke from it then. (Yes, I was a Republican party activist through the ’90s, despite my Agnosticism. It was not, then, an impediment to working for the Republican party in my home state of Connecticut. It would, however, very likely prevent me from being involved in the Republican party now; the non-religious no longer even have a home among Connecticut’s “moderate” Republicans.)

The chief reason for my departure was the GOP’s increasingly militant religiosity and the growing power of dominionists and quasi-dominionists within its ranks. As it happens, Sullivan also cites the Right’s religiosity as one point in his own indictment of the Right:

I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.

This is, of course, not new. Others associated with the Right have also noticed, and been repulsed by, the hyperreligiosity of US conservatism (e.g. Kathleen Parker, about whom I’ve blogged already). Hopefully, Sullivan’s mention of Right-wing religious militancy will be picked up by more people, and maybe this time someone will actually pay attention.

Then again, with the popularity of ardent religionists and quasi-dominionists among the Right (e.g. Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, etc.), I doubt Sullivan’s critique will be enough. More than likely, the sanctimoniously-blinded Right will just cast aside Sullivan’s indictment by asserting that “he was never really a conservative,” and thus dismiss him. More’s the pity.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Sullivan Breaks From The Right

Over the last few years it’s become common for theists to make outrageous and inaccurate claims about atheism. These are almost always made out of ignorance. The latest example — reported by Germany’s Der Spiegel — is no exception:

In an Eastern sermon that has drawn widespread criticism, the Catholic bishop of Augsburg has linked the crimes committed under Nazi and Communist regimes to atheism. Atheist groups have reacted with fury and accuse the cleric of rewriting history.

A Catholic German bishop has come under fire for his remarks condemning atheists. In a sermon given on Easter Sunday, the bishop of Augsburg, Walter Mixa, warned of rising atheism in Germany. “Wherever God is denied or fought against, there people and their dignity will soon be denied and held in disregard,” he said in the sermon. He also said that “a society without God is hell on earth” and quoted the Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”

Most controversially, he linked the Nazi and Communist crimes to atheism. “In the last century, the godless regimes of Nazism and Communism, with their penal camps, their secret police and their mass murder, proved in a terrible way the inhumanity of atheism in practice.” Christians and the Church were always the subject of “special persecution” under these systems, he said.

This keeps coming up so let’s set the record straight: The atrocities of the Third Reich and communist regimes happened because they were vicious, totalitarian governments which viewed certain people as inconvenient and therefore expendable.

As for blaming atheism for the Holocaust, Bishop Mixa is not one to talk. The Holocaust was the product of many centuries of anti-Semitism in central Europe, and the source of that anti-Semitism was — you guessed it! — Christianity!

That’s right, Christianity, not atheism, caused the Holocaust. Christians have been railing against Jews almost since Christianity began in the middle of the 1st century CE. There is no way this long tradition of hatred for Jews played no role in the Holocaust. None.

That the Third Reich was an atheist regime, is denied by the Concordat of 1933, the equivalent of a treaty between the Third Reich and the Vatican, which defined a role for Catholicism within Germany. The Vatican would not have been able to sign such an agreement with an “atheist” state. The effect of this Concordat was that the then-young Third Reich was legitimized around the world. In other words, the Catholic Church itself helped “enable” Hitler and and his cronies. For a Catholic bishop to blame the Nazis’ actions on atheism, is hypocritical, since it minimizes the Church’s involvement in the formation of the Third Reich.

As for the communist regimes being atheist, they were … but this is not because they were atheist-evangelists. The reason, rather, was that they suppressed religion in order to control the people more effectively. Thus, the reason that Josef Stalin and Pol Pot ordered mass slaughters was not to advance the cause of atheism, but to enhance their own power; that both were atheists played no role on those decisions.

On the other hand, let’s have ourselves a little look at Christianity and the violence it sparked, through history. Perhaps most significantly we have events such as the Inquisitions and the Crusades. Neither of these would have taken place as they did, if not for the existence of Christianity, and for those who championed it. The Inquisitions were all about promoting “orthodox” or “proper” Christianity, in the face of heresy. Had there been no interest in forcing heretics to become orthodox, there would have been no Inquisitions.

Much the same is true of the Crusades; had there been no Christianity, there would have been no concept of a “Holy Land” which had to be rescued from the Saracens by armed Christians. It is true that, without Christianity as a motivator, the Byzantine Empire might still have called upon western European forces for assistance … but this assistance would have been a true military alliance, would have resulted in a much more conventional military operation, it would have taken place much closer to Byzantine borders than far away in Jerusalem, and there would not have been thousands of completely-unarmed civilians who blundered into a war zone out of religious fervor and were slaughtered. In other words, the entire enterprise would have been vastly different, more limited in scope, and without the mindless zeal of some Crusaders.

It’s time for religionists like Bishop Mixa to finally confess the sins of their religion, be honest with people about them, and stop blaming atheists for things they did not do, while their own religion has a closet stuffed full of skeletons just clamoring to get out. It’s the height of hypocrisy to blame other factions for what one’s own faction has done. But Christians aren’t strangers to hypocrisy, even though Jesus himself explicitly, clearly, and unambiguously forbid all of his followers ever to be hypocritical. (Why do so many Christians refuse to obey Jesus? I don’t understand.)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on More Religionist Ignorance

The California Supreme Court recently declared that gay couples have a right to marry. As that declaration goes into effect, religionists have found ways to prevent it from actually happening. Some officials have decided to perform no weddings at all! If they marry no one, they cannot be forced to marry gays, according to the Los Angeles Times:

Kern County Clerk Ann Barnett has announced that her office will stop performing all weddings a few days before June 17, the date that same-sex couples can legally apply for marriage licenses.

Barnett’s staff processes marriage licenses for hundreds of Kern County residents each year and it will continue to do, for both straight and gay couples, beginning June 17 as required by law, she said in a written statement. But as of June 13, the staff will no longer officiate at civil ceremonies for an extra $30 fee.

But wait … there’s more to it than just this little bit of irrationality:

Officials cited financial reasons for the decision. But internal memos between a high-ranking official in Barnett’s office and a conservative Christian legal defense fund, published in the Bakersfield Californian this week, indicate that Barnett may have acted on principle rather than for financial reasons.

So we not only have an obstructionist religionist deciding to perform no weddings at all in order to keep from having to marry gays, but she is also demonstrably lying about her motives! Wow, I wonder what Jesus would think of one of his followers who lies in his cause? (Not much, I expect.)

Really, how immature … to cook up this legalistic dodge — which affects all couples, not just gays — in order to get around the law of the state. Grow up, Ms Barnett!

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Obstructionist Antics In Jesus’ Name