Armageddon tired of superstition dictating government policy

The Divine Ms. Z has a great piece in today's Toronto Star - an interview with Marci McDonald, author of the just-released The Armageddon Factor: the Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, about which I blogged the other day. She points out the release of the book come on the very day that Canadian politicians are taking part in what has become a staple in U.S. politics - the prayer breakfast. These meeting of the pious and the political have been an annual event in Canada for 45 years, but have never had the prominence or the political import of similar events in the U.S.

These prayer breakfasts were begun in Seattle during the depression by a preacher named Abraham Veriede as a way to pull local business and political leaders together to beat the labor movement. Veriede courted the rich and powerful and built the organization now run by Douglas Coe and described in Jeff Sharlet's The Family. The group believes that the rich and powerful are given wealth and power by God to do his bidding and that minor considerations such as ethics and morality do not apply to them because they are doing God's bidding. Veriede and later Coe, often speak admiringly of the dedication of men such as Adolf Hitler and Lenin and want to harness the same sort of dedication to their cause. Read Sharlet's book, it is chilling stuff. The Family already has dozens of senators and congressmen in its "prayer cells" and it can be assumed their tentacles reach into these political prayer breakfasts in Canada too.

Then read Marci McDonald's book on the Canadian wing of theocratic movement and realize that it can and is happening here. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't really have anything against religious belief - I'm a believer myself, at least on odd-numbered days. What I object to is allowing any one religion to sway public policy, especially a religion as goofy as the North American brand of tent revival fundamentalist Christianity. How goofy are some of these people?

From Antonia Zerbisais' article in The Toronto Star:

According to The Armageddon Factor, evangelicals believe Canada has to clean up its act on abortion, feminism, and homosexuality because it has a special role to play in the “end times.”

That’s because of Psalms 72: 8-9, which leads off the book, and foretells of “dominion … from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

Never mind that it was likely about an ancient tribal leader’s turf. Many evangelicals see it as a sign, as they see how Parliament Hill’s Peace Tower clock, which stopped because of electrical problems for the first time ever in 2006, stopped at 7:28.

Yeah, that's the kind of magical thinking that you really really want governing economic, education, environmental and defense policy, the kind that thinks Jesus will take of everything for us and that there is no point planning past next Tuesday because the Rapture is coming.

Expect the lead up to the next election to consist entirely of distracting "culture war" wedge issues like gay marriage, crime, and whether the National Gallery should have nude pictures in it. There will even be coded references to changes in abortion law rules on maternal health and funding for religious aid organizations. If the Conservatives have their way the economy, the war in Afghanistan and the mistreatment of detainees and the government's abandonment of its responsibilities to its citizens (see Omar Khadr, Abousfian Abdelrazik, et al) will never be mentioned.

crossposted from the Woodshed

Theocrats gone wild

With apologies to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show, here is your International Moment of Zen Theocratic Wingnuttery:

Former Arkansas Governor and clergyman Mike Huckabee speaking to a crowd of the faithful at Jerry Falwell's Liberty "University":

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/12/what-huckabee-a.html

About 50 minutes into it, a student asks Huckabee "what do you attribute this surge (in polls) to?"
"There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one," Huckabee says. "It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people.
"And that's the only way that our campaign could be doing what it's doing. And I'm not being facetious nor am I trying to be trite.
"There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that a little will become much. And it has. And it defies all explanation it has confounded the pundits and I'm enjoying every moinute of their trying to figure it out and until they look at it in a" -- here he motions in a God-like heavenly manner -- "just, experience beyond human, they'll never figure it out. That's honestly why it's happening."

crossposted from The Woodshed

Tory's existence is a mere theory.

I was going to steer clear of this because... I don't know. But when something goes over the top like this, some comment is required.

"It's still called the theory of evolution," Tory said. "They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs."

*CHOKE* Fundie!! Fundie!!

Tory later clarified his remarks to say that he meant creationism could be taught in such a class, and that he did not mean to suggest the two theories would be given equal weight in a science lab.

Ah... the old "my superstitious crap which has no evidence to support it is a theory because I say so" line. The truth is, you couldn't run creation or so-called intelligent design through a science lab and come up with anything more than a report on irrational beliefs arising from ignorance or fear.

But if Tory thinks that something is a theory just because somebody says it is... well, allow me.

It is a theory that most politicians, but particularly conservative ones, are lying, thieving, cheating, misogynist swine who are out to line their own pockets and bang as many young political assistants as they can, because they have overblown egos and a sense of entitlement beyond what would be considered reasonable.

It's just a theory.

Personally, I think it should be taught in political science classes. Students have the right to know that other theories exist.

Blog Against Theocracy II

Everyone expects, these days anyway, for a blog to provide links to something else as a way to support an argument. And that works when all we're doing is to make comment on an event. Something happens, we link to a report, we state an opinion, 50 percent think it's wonderful and insightful; 50 percent think it's right out to lunch.

OK, the split is often not quite that even, but it comes out in the wash.

There will be no links. There will be no quotes. There will be no dragging up someone's blog or website or ideas. Not this time.

Some people have suggested that Blog Against Theocracy is a gathering of atheists bashing religion. And, in fairness to some of those complainants, that may actually happen. I will make every effort to avoid that and, if I fail, understand that I am as human as those who would become critical of my failure to embrace a particular religion.

As a matter of disclosure, I believe in no particular god. In fact, I believe in no god at all. That's not to say that I wasn't indoctrinated at an early age to accept at least one of the world's religious entities. I remember standing in Roman garb as something of a pageboy doing rites around a Roman symbol of execution. But I chose a different path.

I came to believe in democracy.

Strange word that - democracy. There are many different forms of it and many different views. I choose to mix three distinctly different forms: Direct democracy; representative democracy and liberal democracy. In short, the people have a direct say in government, they choose those who will act on their behalf and the minority will be protected from the majority.

Those three forms of democracy, exercised properly allow the voice of the people to be heard, put an executive and legislative body in place and impose limits preventing the individual from being removed of rights.

Religion has a totally different set of tenets. The individual is expected to meet the dogmatic requirements of any particular religion that person has, for whatever reason, agreed to be a member. It goes even further when that religion, for whatever reason, has evolved into segments that, while worshiping the same god, has different rites, different canons of acceptable behaviour and different benchmarks to define religious adherence. Religion, in any form, tends to be stagnant. It is based on ancient beliefs, ancient rituals and a faithful, semi-compliant following.

Clearly, the two, democracy and religion, simply don't mix. Each has its place exclusive of the other.

Free exercise of religion is not an invitation to weave a religious thread through the workings of government. No more than governments which guarantee the free exercise of religion have the right to impose on church doctrine, providing such doctrine does not violate the rule of law.

Simply put, there is nothing preventing religious believers from participating in government. There is something seriously wrong when the religion becomes the participant.

Countries which declare a state religion immediately face the problem of the non-adherent. In countries where the religion is the basis for the canon of laws, behaviour is more controlled, lifestyles are stringently dictated and liberty is curtailed. Minorities, in whatever form, are cast as outsiders. Even in the more tolerant states, the existence of a state religion serves to marginalize any group which does not practice the religious observances dictated or promoted by the state.

In short, the hallmark of governments which impose religion as law is intolerance.

Europe has spent the last four centuries crawling out of the stocks of theocratic government. The 20th Century saw no less than 35 governments disestablish their state religions in favour of completely segregated secular governments. The primary reason for this move was to eliminate the appearance of religious intolerance and allow, not diminish, the free exercise of religion and enhance the rights of individuals.

If people find comfort in their religion I would be the last person to deny them the right to worship. I would however, oppose any suggestion that the religious beliefs of those people be imposed on any individual or group that is not invested in that religion.

Dominionists of all faiths and religions fail acknowledge or choose to ignore the one basic form of democracy which exists to allow them to function - protection of individual liberties. Condemnation of minority groups, not because they are having any ill effect on the state, but because the dominionists find them offensive, is all too prevalent.

Which begs the question: If dominionists are so convinced that non-religious minorities, which cause no harm except to violate the contradictory dictums of ancient texts written for an age long since overtaken by time, what would they do if they occupied the seat of power and someone actually offered them harm?

I suspect we all know the answer to that one.

Blog Against Theocracy

I was thinking this should be easy. Then I realized why it wouldn't be. To me the argument is clear. Religion has no place in an equal and just government. Ever.

This particular subject in the United States is centered upon the encroachment of Christian fundamentalists in government and then the implementation of policy determined from religious beliefs. One particular religious belief.

In Canada the threat of a theocracy is minimized by the existence of the The Charter of Rights and Freedoms contained within an open-ended, written constitution. However, the Christian fundamentalist crowd, most of which are of US origin, have congregated around the seat of power in Ottawa with anticipation that the Conservative government of Stephen Harper will give them voice, access to legislation and involvement in policy decisions. They won't get far given Harper's minority government, but should he achieve a majority expect the Christian right to become more powerful and more influential in the policy decisions of such a government.

It can be successfully argued that the canons of laws in many countries emerged from the dominant religion of those countries. It can also be argued that the laws are seriously flawed and until religion is extracted from the common law those countries, to a greater or lesser degree, share an odious attribute: the subjugation of any and all people who do not subscribe to the dominant religion.

The truth is, it is nearly impossible to distinguish a theocracy from a one-party state. Ideology replaces reason, research is bent to fit religious dogma and science is dismissed as heretical. Worse though, is that freedom, the word, is tossed around where no true freedom exists. And the leadership of such states requires adherence to a religious doctrine they themselves often ignore or feel is beneath them.

Of the theocracies that have existed or exist today, every one of them is responsible for the suppression of freedom and the marginalization or elimination of those who cannot be called adherents. In all of them, totalitarianism exists to destroy religious opposition. Even so-called tolerant theocracies have an element of exclusionism which sees segments of their populations denied rights and privileges.

It all starts with the courts. And once the Supreme Court of a country is taken over by the theocratists, the results are predictable.

Blog Against Theocracy

Unrepentant old hippie is putting out a call to bloggers who believe that it is important to maintain a complete and definitive separation between church and state.

I first saw this over at Blue Gal and I'll quote her for what this is all about.

No religious discrimination.
PRO End-of-Life Care (no more Terri Schiavo travesties)
Reproductive health decisions made by individuals, not religious "majorities"
Democracy not Theocracy
Academic Integrity (like, a rock is as old as it is, not as old as the Bible says)
Sound Science (good bye so-called "intelligent" design)
Respect for ALL families (based on love, not sexual orientation. Hellooooo.)
And finally,
The right to worship, OR NOT.

The US bloggers are fighting for a constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state. That may seem a little bit out of the necessary for some Canadians, however, the people they are fighting against all have branch offices in Ottawa and lobby-shops within view of Parliament Hill.

It's probably not necessary to mention the crop of wingnuts resident in Harper's Conservative caucus, but why not. Harper is surrounded by Christian literalist bible-thumpers and if they get an opportunity to cram their religious crap down your throat, they will.

So:

There are no real guidelines to this. The idea is to post at least once from Friday to Sunday Easter Weekend, April 6-8.

A link site has been created at Blog Against Theocracy.

Now, if I could find a way to keep those damned rabbits from laying eggs in the bushes....