The new discimination against the nonreligious

Boston Globe ^ | 1/20/04 | Cathy Young

[RJCogburn]

THE OTHER day, I was reading an interview with Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean in Newsweek when I had to stop and check that it was indeed Newsweek and not, say, Christianity Today. Yes, it was indeed Newsweek. And, after a series of questions about a variety of public policy issues, Dean was asked, out of the clear blue, the following question: "Do you see Jesus Christ as the son of God and believe in him as the route to salvation and eternal life?" For the record, Dean's somewhat cagey answer probably did little to assuage doubts about his religious faith: "I certainly see him as the son of God. I think whether I'm saved or not is not gonna be up to me." The real issue, though, is why this question even came up in a political magazine. Do we now have a religious test for public office -- something that was explicitly rejected by the Founders of the United States of America?

[anniegetyourgun]

The author appears paranoid. (Something that wouldn't surprise me coming out of the irreligious Left Boston, MA.) Since the writer is worried about is Christianity, not religion or spirituality. Since she recites the data, she should easily be able to deduce that Christianity is hardly a threat. In reality, it probably only represents about 10% of the population, once you take out all the pretenders (such as Dean). While many Americans still call themselves "Christians," they mean it with a little "c."

[Adder]

"But what about the intolerance of stigmatizing secularists? Polls show that approximately 40 percent of Americans do not belong to a church and do not consider religion a very important part of their lives. The state of political discourse today seems to reduce them to second-class citizens."

B*A*R*F
So because a voter decides that he would rather vote for someone who shares his beliefs, then he is "intolerant". Also, you mean to tell me that those 40% who are not chruch members ALWAYS vote for "secularists"? If they do not, are they practicing self hatred and hypocrisy because they vote for a religious person?
This needs to be laughed at loudly.

[TheGeezer]

I suppose it is public education that has foisted the idea that the founding fathers wanted no religious sentiments in any decisions regarding government. That is wrong, and many writings of founders exist to refute this wrong notion. George Washington, for example, was a very pious man, and his political decisions were not stripped of his pious morality before concluding.

What is especially fascinating to me is that simply because a sentiment is not what most would define as religious, does not mean that it not religious. For example, to say that God does not exist is a religious sentiment, based upon faith in that idea. Therefore, imposing that idea upon ithers is itself imposition of religious sentiment.

[djpg]

This is a Democracy. Voters have the right to consider religion an important factor if they wish, even if the author wishes that they not do so.

[Between the Lines]

But what about the intolerance of stigmatizing secularists?

The secularists will one day accept the stigma of their own free will and it will be placed on the forehead or on the hand.

[WritableSpace]

"I certainly see him as the son of God. I think whether I'm saved or not is not gonna be up to me." The real issue, though, is why this question even came up in a political magazine. Do we now have a religious test for public office -- something that was explicitly rejected by the Founders of the United States of America?

And its back in place now that you have Judges denied office because of their religious principles. One common tactic of liberals-- Blame on others the same sins they themselves commit, but against those who surely have not commited anything like what they are accusing them of.

Whatever points Dean may have scored with his God talk, he has probably lost by looking opportunistic and insincere. The fault, however, lies not only with him but with a political climate in which a politician who is not very devout is advised to fake it.

Thats right its not Deans fault he's an idiot, this article is a joke. BARF!! [Dammit Dean you failed me last night.]

[alloysteel]

"The new discrimination against the nonreligious"

I would have thought the situation was quite the opposite. At any rate, this is not a new fight. There has been an atheistic streak in this country since the time of its founding, some occasions with greater fervor than others. The nonreligious and antireligious has always been associated with the more leftward tilt, reinforced by the Marxist doctrine that religion was "the opiate of the masses".

The unchurched, or more accurately, the unsaved, do not consider themselves to be impaired. They are "thinking freely", and believe themselves not to be influenced by "bourgeois standards". Once the limits are cast off, there is no stopping the expansion of the intellect. Except that expansion is largely due to being filled with a very light weight substance, like helium, and the new consciousness does not have much gravitas. The freethinkers no longer have a means to measure themselves by, and they drift into the stratosphere, to burst and fall unseen and unnoticed.

In the end, they contribute little to the national political dialogue. So there is every reason to not assign the "nonreligious" much importance.

[OpusatFR]

"But in the past few weeks, Dean has been the target of something dangerously close to a religious witch-hunt -- and that should concern all of us, whatever our party affiliation "

Oh, get over yourself.

Dean walked into any criticism he deserved by pandering. If you aren't religious, that's your belief. But, do not attempt to schmooze by flinging some religious phrases and stock sayings at those who are, if you do not have the conviction of faith.

This is just some more of secular humanism's belief in ~victimhood.~ No one is likely to make this writer into a martyr although he apparently presents his silly thoughts to all for this purpose.

[ThirstyMan]

Dean has tried to repackage himself, rather clumsily, as a man of faith. The results have been rather pathetic to watch, since his new persona is so transparently an act dictated by political strategy (Dean has all but openly admitted this with his remarks about the need to appeal to religious sentiment when campaigning in the South).

Dean must have thought being transparent would be appropriate and the people have judged him a phony for his lack of perception on this subject.

Whatever points Dean may have scored with his God talk, he has probably lost by looking opportunistic and insincere. The fault, however, lies not only with him but with a political climate in which a politician who is not very devout is advised to fake it.

The "fault" lies Dean himself [or the adviser who coached him]. What he did made him appear as an "opportunist." Come on! If one has an alive and guiding faith in God, that is who he is. But Howard Dean has a shady godless past and his phony attempts to manufacture an appealing faith by doing things like visiting Jimmy Carter's Sunday school and speaking out on a topic [faith in God] which he obviously is uninformed, are as old and inappropriate as they were in the days of Jesus. Jesus warned us all not to pray on the street corners and not to donate with an eye "to be seen by men". Therefore IF a man's faith is only public then it is by Jesus' definition phony. Dean can do and say all he wants, it just is not authentic! And to complicate matters, Dean's real supporters who awarded him front runner status, don't want to hear about that faith garbage anyway...so he has shot himself in the foot real good.

Dean is clearly doing what Jesus warned against. He said that since Southerners like to see faith in their candidate, he was going to do things that would make him more appealing. Trouble is he already had given himself a huge black eye by declaring himself a student of the Bible...but when asked by a reporter what his favorite New Testament book was he stupidly replied, Job. And then he further complicated his transparent stupidity by saying something like Job had several endings and he didn't like all of them. Duh!!!

Revealing himself to be a phony to anyone who does read their Bible and angering his base who don't want to hear it anyway, one can't blame the "political climate" for this double gaffe. Blame Dean for trying to be something he is not! Don't blame not us believing Americans for wanting to know if a candidate has any faith in God.

[Agnes Heep]

The unchurched, or more accurately, the unsaved, do not consider themselves to be impaired. They are "thinking freely", and believe themselves not to be influenced by "bourgeois standards".

I'm what you might call "unchurched," yet I adhere to Judeo-Christian standards of morality, and the Hebrew concept of the Almighty. The reason I'm not "churched" is that I don't care for the centuries of trivial dogma that have enveloped the two great religions in the past two thousand years. I've constrained my behavior within the limits of those standards, and have never used my freedom as an excuse for behavior that's antithetical them.

Bill Clinton is a churchgoer, I believe. I can tell that by the great big Bible he so ostentatiously carries while coming out of services.

[tdadams]

Christian tenets have been invoked by both abolitionists and slaveholders, by both supporters and opponents of equal rights for African-Americans and women.

If this author only got one thing right in this piece, it's this. Religion has been used to justify political stances (even opposing political stances) for as long as both religion and politics have existed.

[Land of the Free 04]

Dean has been the target of something dangerously close to a religious witch-hunt [...] In today's America, Foer wrote, a politician cannot be an open secularist without paying a penalty at the polls: "This is, for better or worse, an openly religious country that prefers its politicians to be openly religious, too -- a trend that has only become more pronounced in recent national elections."

So Foer's stating truths is a "witch-hunt"? What a twit.

[King Prout]

"This is a Democracy."

No, it is not, Thank GOD! The author is not the only American suffering from revisionist propaganda overload concerning the nature of this our Constitutional Republic.

[Map Kernow]

The state of political discourse today seems to reduce them to second-class citizens.

You mean the "political discourse" that bans public display of the Ten Commandments, even as one of the bases of our jurisprudence?

You mean the "political discourse" that makes a religious Catholic presumptively unfit for the Federal Bench?

You mean the "political discourse" that bans crosses in memorial displays along public highways?

You mean the "political discourse" that forbids mention of the word "Christmas" during the whole month of December?

You mean THAT "political discourse," MZZZ. Young?

Stop before I bust out crying.....

[swilhelm73]

In a column for beliefnet.org, a website that deals with religious issues, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach asserts that nonreligious people have a problem taking a strong stand against evil; as an example, he cites Dean's dovish stance in the war against terrorism. What piffle. Whatever one thinks of Dean's views, there are plenty of secular hawks in this war -- including the outspokenly atheistic British-born journalist Christopher Hitchens. And there are, of course, plenty of doves who embrace sometimes extreme pacifism in the name of religion.

While belief in religion is not a guaranteer of morality or good conduct, there can be no question its absence dramatically increases immorality and evil.

Consider the greatest crimes of the last century;

Red China 30-100M democides - atheists
USSR: 10-100M democides - atheists
NAZI Germany: 12M democides - pagans/atheists
Cambodia: 1-3M democides - atheists
Ottoman Empire (Armenian genocide): 800k-2M democides - muslims
Vietnam (after the war): 500K-2M democides - atheists
Am I the only one that sees a pattern here???

For now atheists in the west still follow some Christian morals in a pick and choose sense. The atheist left has shown, however, that it has no problem dumping even such minimal restrictions whenever it seriously conflicts with the dictates of leftist ideology.

[Democratshavenobrains]

Christopher Hitchens is the abberation, not the norm.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Is this satire???