The Smiley Smile Message Board

I've long believed that "separation of church and state" is something of a myth.  A hoax even.  As we continue to remove God -- not religion, but God -- from public life, our public life aka "The State" becomes the religion.

Boy Prays To Obama
http://www.infowars.com/video-boy-prays-to-obama/
“Barack Obama, thank you for doing everything and all the kind stuff… Thank you for all the stuff you helped us with,” the little boy, who identifies himself as Steven, says as he kneels down and closes his eyes in typical praying fashion.

“You are good, Barack Obama. You are great and when you get older you will be able to do great things. Love, Steven,” the boy concludes.

Yes, "thank you" Obama.  You know... for like the "kind stuff" and "everything."

Well, statism has always been a religion, but then again I don't understand how anyone claiming to be a member of an Abrahamic faith or any other faith would even support the state...

I find all of this cult-of-personality, heck let's drop the "personality" and call it the cult-like fervor built up around a single politician to be at best distasteful and misguided, at worst dangerous, to witness in the US.

I guess I in my naivete having been a political observer since my teen years have seen some goofy sh*t go down in politics, but the way there is a near-religious aura around any US politician seems like such a waste of time and energy. Who is to blame for this?

I thought the Obama campaign would have learned a lesson from the backlash early in the first term that greeted those videos of the children in school singing the "mm mmm mmmm, Barack Hussein Obama..." "equal work for equal pay, that's the order of the day..." singalong as part of a school's musical presentation on presidents. Rightfully so, I'd say, that kind of thing got a mostly negative reaction considering the age of the kids singing the praises. Some things just cross the line, and that seemed to be one of them no matter which side tried to spin it into political points.

I mean, seriously, anyone who has worked in classroom or educational situations pretty much accepts that you can teach children to recite or regurgitate pretty much any series of words and they don't need to know what they're necessarily saying as a prerequisite. A teacher could order a class of first-graders to pledge an oath to a politician like Obama, are the kids going to question it? Is that something that those of us parents who hold all kinds of political views want our kids to be trained into doing as part of a school project?

Yet, the biggest irony or hypocrisy (and I'll put this in bold for emphasis)...I'm willing to wager that these same organizations who rushed to defend those teachers and whoever else got the young kids chanting Obama's praises at a school function are the same ones who wouldn't allow a "Christmas Concert" at the same school, nor would they allow a Christmas carol like "Silent Night" to be performed at that school because of religious overtones, never mind the musical worth of any given carol.

So they have "Winter Festivals" without mentioning Christmas at all, they don't want a high school valedictorian to invoke religion as part of his/her speech to the graduates, yet the spectacle of a kid who, let's be honest, at this age will most likely parrot anything an authority figure tells them in order to gain "brownie points" or praise, delivers a prayer in the name of a politician using this kind of reverence is something that's acceptable and worthy of praise?

How does this work, exactly?

I don't even dip a toe into the deep end of the "Church V. State" pool because that term and concept is misused and misstated so many times it's lost much of it's intent, but rather I focus on why having kids recite chants, songs, and prayers in homage of a politician is somehow more palatable than having a children's chorus sing a Christmas tune at their elementary school.

The kids chanting to a political figure reminds me too much of the "greats" like Fidel and Mao and Josef and all the rest who put on similar displays as they'd pat the well-coiffed heads of schoolchildren who would deliver similar praise and glory at official state functions. No thanks.

And it seems to be more acceptable based on who the politician is and what their ideology is at least in the US, on how acceptable it is to see things like this unfold. Which is just pure, unmitigated nonsense and hypocrisy.

That story bothered me, my apologies for unloading all of that stuff as I just did in a rambling way. But it just bothers me quite a bit. Back to the fun.  :)

It bothers me too -- conceptually.  First its a child, who clearly must have been lead into some very creepy form of worship.  Second, its worship.  He's praying to a man.  He's closing his eyes and attempting to channel the good graces of a MORTAL human being as if this person isn't a MORTAL human being, but a god -- or The God, or one who works with God and could meet this praying boy on some spiritual plane, if you will, and actually hear his prayers.  And answer them.

If this mortal human being were, say a dear friend or family member who had passed -- that would be understandable, since that person is no longer of this world.  Or say a religious figure, like a Saint, who could be linked spiritually to a common otherworldly God or form of worship and prayer.  But this is pure cult sh-t.  Personality worship.  Political worship.  It's simply a boy who's spirituality has be stolen.  Hijacked.

I believe it's demonic.  It's the work of some very corrupt, dark forces.  It's replacing perfection and holiness (however you define it) with something finite, imperfect and nonspiritual.  The Pope said "Collective Salvation" was demonic (something Obama believes in) and he's right.  I believe this is also demonic.  But I digress...


But it DOESN'T bother me -- politically.  I like pointing out the gross hypocrisy of the other side.  The depths of creepiness and depravity and hypocrisy of the other side -- which claims superiority in all matters of this earth and how we should separate worship from public life.  A political movement (especially Obama) that displays disdain for spirituality and its role in society and our government.  A politically corrupt movement that has increasingly left people with nothing holy in their lives, but to worship them -- the government.  The great leveler.  The great provider, that will make things fair and right.

And I love showing people what I said would happen, when it actually happens.  No spin.  Just reality!  It's time to call Ghostbusters.

(http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/ghostbusters.jpg)

People always seem to forget that "separation of church & state" means separation of religion & state. It was put there so no other religion could be placed above another or become the (endorsed) state religion. It had nothing to do with God and spirituality. The founding fathers all believed in some Supreme Being and that it was guiding them in founding the country, even the Revolution, itself. Over the years it's been perverted into something that it was never meant to be; Godlessness.

I really don't give one flying fookle that some deluded "video boy" is praying to whomever.  I mean, he could be praying to Your G-d Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck too, or The Pope, or Stalin, who knows and who cares.  But meanwhile I wait for you to cite, in an actual "real" news article, where BHO has ever, and I mean EVER "disdained spirituality".  With respect, your post is complete BS.   >:D  :police:

I don't much care who the hell you pray to; don't make me pay for it and don't make me participate.

Yes, good!

I am totally in favor removing all favorable tax exemptions for ALL churches!  Why should they be exempt from paying taxes, hmmm?

Who's with me on this?

You, I and Joe Blow on the Street are funding these CORRUPT organizations (churches) because they pay no taxes.

I'd like someone to ask Bill Maher, for one, what he thinks of a video like this.

I want to exempt EVERYONE from paying taxes.

Most religions say that the body is a Temple. Temple, church, tomato, to-mat-o. I'm filing for tax exempt status today.

I'll just start a political activism PAC, then splinter it into the core group which is basically a name only but not tax exempt, and an "educational" branch of the group which is tax exempt and does most of the actual work for the cause. If a Democrat is in the White House I'll model it on MoveOn, if a Republican is in I'll model it on one of Rove's groups.

Either way I'll be free to spread all kinds of partisan bullshit and enjoy my tax-free status as I attend all kinds of chicken-and-peas fundraising banquet dinners around the country.

Now that's corrupt.

Mods, have we considered this for Smileysmile.net?

How come so many posts in the Sandbox sound like they were written by bug-eyed shrieking people you'd cross the street to avoid?

It seems to me that so many people in the United States are scared and angry and don't know where to turn.

Hi heysaboda, thanks for replying.  Let's dive in...

Don't misunderstand -- I'm not trying to tempt you into having concern for this child.  I'm just rubbing the Left's nose in their mess.  I want folks to see and be aware of the state religion (coming down from on high!  Hallelujah!!)  It's coming from the very same sect of our culture that portends to place a premium on separating religion (and God and spirituality) from public life.  This is ironic, and I love irony.

If we extrapolate it just a bit further -- it should be easy to conclude that this is actually what's intended by all this Leftist.  Throughout the world.  Leftist Dictators paint their ugly mugs on buildings.  You're made to worship them.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Tiananmen_Mao.jpg/220px-Tiananmen_Mao.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/55/Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg/220px-Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg)

So... if we flip to the last slide... Separation of Church and State, as it's used today by the Big Left, is nothing more than a ruse.  A fake left, shifting the defense to the right leaving the end zone a quick five yard sprint for the quarterback -- who had the ball the whole time, neatly concealed on his side.

I think we know who he was praying to Heysaboda.  But, this comment is not a complete waste.  I find it very telling that you equate "my God" as being likewise.  Very interesting...

Allow me to retort... The three big things that come to my mind are...
1. "Bitter clingers."  Clinging to their religion and their guns. -- This off-mic moment is very cold and illuminating.  To me, it simply suggests he want "in there" -- in that spiritual space.  Very weird.

2. "My individual salvation is based on our collective salvation..." -- Ahhh, there it is.  This is a perverted and bastardized (and demonic, according to the Pope) view of Christian salvation.  Saying that in order to save HIS soul he must do something to US -- and we must be taken there with HIM, spiritually.  Black Liberation Theology.  Another topic... but, boy is it evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAwiwpFZ6ws

3. Birth Control/Catholic Church -- This one has specific policy behind it, not just a "news article."  Back when the Left was raging it's war on women, this chestnut popped out.  It forces religious institutions to pay for things that it thinks are bad, evil and sad.  But... so what... his salvation depends it.

I think we should tax only people who wear white shorts!   :lol

And by the way BB, I meant no personal aspersion or insult to you, sorry if I was too snarky, just your post that I was criticising.  I am sure you are a lovely person and a bright guy!

I just don't abscribe too much importance to BHO's random off mike comments (I've heard them before).  They just don't have the Vast Importance to me, that the Right Wing claims they have.

Hey by the way, I can add pics too (I'm the one in the middle):

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b8/Three_Stooges_Intro_Card_1936.jpg/250px-Three_Stooges_Intro_Card_1936.jpg)

hey hey hey, stop calling Democrats 'The Left'. The USA has 2 political parties, Right and Further Right. There is no middle, no left. I know everyone gets worked up about 'liberals' and 'socialists', but it's incorrect.

The Right is not immune from state or dictator worship either (e.g. 1930s Germany), but let's not let the facts get in the way of Making A Point, eh!?

Well, I would have to disagree.  We really ought to allow facts to act as a buffer.

For example, might you be referring to the National Socialism party that arose to power in Germany during the 1930s?  Cuz if so... you know, your batting average is ZIPPY.

I didn't take it that way at all -- I understood that you were only spearing my points and opinions.


I love posting pictures.  They're worth so much more than words!

(http://matters.madisoncollege.edu/sites/default/files/field/image/Grilling%20burgers.jpg)

After taking a breath and getting the knee-jerk reaction out of the way, I wanted to clarify something which I think is crucial to the topic of this thread.

Is the child in the video praying *for* Obama or praying *to* Obama?

Because if he's praying for Obama, there's nothing at all to be concerned about.

If he's praying to Obama, then that's another story, and it is troublesome.

I had in mind something that happened in modern history, at least from the previous century if that's modern enough. And that would be the case of Japan having an emperor then known as Hirohito who was considered "divine" as leader, and his words were considered to be the words of a god. One of the conditions and compromises after Japan's formal surrender in WW2 was that Hirohito could retain his title and would not be prosecuted for war crimes, but he would renounce his "divinity", or divine status as a god and leader of the country. His renouncing that divinity broke a centuries-old tradition of Japanese rule.

That is an obvious example, a modern one at that, of a situation where the leader of a nation both symbolic through tradition and birthright was both a religious and a political figure. So people, in effect, would "pray" to such a leader of their nation if they followed the traditions of their country and/or their religion.

And I believe that this kind of example may be what concerns some people when they see some traces of a politician in any way being elevated to a divine status even in overt symbolism if not outright actions.

So that could be one factor, apart from those who are followers of particular religions who may view such actions suggesting a prayer being offered to a politician of any sort as blasphemy.

But again, it comes down to the question of perception, and whether it is a prayer for or a prayer to someone in public office.

I see nothing wrong with any of it. We live in a country with so-called religious freedom. Technically, that gives us the right to pray to whoever we wish to pray to. Whether the kid is praying for or to President Obama, that his right to do either. While I am not religious at all, I do have a problem with anybody who infringes on the rights of others by denying or trying to take away that right.

As an isolated case, a boy praying to Obama is simply weird.  To some it's alarming and spooky.  But in the end, sure -- who cares -- he can pray to a cupcake if he thinks it gives him his Ju-Ju. 

What gets me is this.  I see this is as the direct and intended result of the great "separation of Church and State" propaganda that comes almost unanimously from the Left.  I'm really big into irony -- and I believe the Left is a mirror image of reality.  (Rock.  Rock.  Roll.  Plymouth Rock etc.)  They're an inverted reality -- up is down.  They speak of CRISIS during PEACE and pretend there's PEACE during CRISIS.  Arab Spring anybody?

This is all purposeful.  As a result of their cries to separate our state from church -- the State REPLACES the Church.  It's no accident.  It's a trick.  It's no accident this boy is praying to the head of state.  Since I am a person of faith and reason... I know it is IMPOSSIBLE to think we have the ability to separate what is ALL from anything.  It's an illogical statement that defies the laws of the universe.

Of course our state should not embrace a single church or denomination -- as the statement was intended to mean.  That is logical.  What is not logical is pretending to remove something  that will then leave a perpetual void, that will remain pure and perpetually voided and unfilled.

The absence of God at the state-level is too powerful a seat to remain vacant.  So what's emerged?  Winter parties.  No Merry Christmases.  A high-minded ideal of state purity.  A boy praying to Obama.   :lol 

I don't mean to speak like it's the final scenes of Ghostbusters -- fire n' brimstone, cats n' dogs living together.  But we all see it.  It's slow and mild and we all gradually accept it as fate.  The shroud of the darkside has fallen.

 :jedi

I thought that this was an excellent post from yesterday from DrBB, and I quote:

"People always seem to forget that "separation of church & state" means separation of religion & state. It was put there so no other religion could be placed above another or become the (endorsed) state religion. It had nothing to do with God and spirituality."

So, the USA is not a "Chrsitian nation" (thank goodness) but there are those who wish it so.

Well, at the time of it's writing it was very much a Christian nation in so much as the founding fathers were Christian and more importantly, the laws put in place were based on the Ten Commandments. Religion (the Key Word here) can be multi-Christian faiths, as well as all non-Christian faiths. The point was not to invoke Godlessness, but rather not have one person's God over another. That's a very big difference.

Would it be wrong to say that we started out as a "Godly" nation? That some in government have perverted "Separation of Church & State" to now mean "Un-Godly"?

When you thank Goodness... what are you thanking?  Anyway, that's a really narrow view of the discussion.  First... it's factually incorrect.  We are a Judeo-Christian nation.  And you should be thankful for that.  Our principles come from and aspire to those great ideals.  We're also a former English colony.  We have an English culture and customs and that's why we're conversing in English right now.

The problem we have today is bad education.  Bad politicians are responsible for the bad education.  So it's getting harder to have a deep meaningful discussions with people, since many don't have the basic facts down.  Politicians love it -- they prefer us dumb so they can easily trick us into perpetually voting for them -- so they can get free caviar for life.  

Secondly, the point of Separation of Chuch n' State is to say... the government shouldn't endorse a single state religion -- because that would create a monolithic Church/State partnership -- which is EXACTLY how the left (or current political class) is using the argument of Church n' State today.  They want to remove ALL religion so the state becomes the monolithic church.  It's the same goal.  Just coming from the left flank.

The goal of the perpetual Statest is to create the monolithic society.  No diversity.  Nothing above THEM.

Pretty much.  (Rock. Rock, roll.)  They flipped it around on people.  Not unlike how the health/medicine society gets us all hyped on something like Trans-Fats or High Fructose Corn Syrup -- but then over time, what we replace it with is worse or something.  People just get all caught up in something -- "ok we're supposed to be this now!!" -- and nobody sees what's coming around the other side.  Life's a tightrope... more than we'd prefer it to be.

As for the first point -- "starting out as a 'Godly' nation" -- I'm not sure.  There's a book out by Conrad Black called "Flight of the Eagle" which talks about the intelligence and strategy that our founding fathers used -- it wasn't all divinity and light from a cloud.  Sure, faith was important to many of them.  But they owned slaves, many of them.  So they weren't angels.  Really, more than anything, the founding fathers were bright, reasoned, tactical men -- who understood the nature and tendencies of human desires and frailties. 

They were resourceful people who knew how to win.  Which makes me laugh when I think of folks like Hillary or John Kerry serving as Secretary of State -- doing all the negotiating.  We just don't hire the best people for these jobs.   :smokin

Are you implying that the fascist Nazi party in Germany in the 1930s were somehow not Right wing?

Undoubtedly and it is precisely hogwash. You are exactly correct - the left has been entirely disenfranchised from the legitimate political sphere in the United States, by design, mostly illegal. BB thinks he can get away with his usual fabrications like these because he knows I won't respond directly to him. Please see the introduction to my Sandbox thread "A Long History" where I give a very lengthy analysis of where these fabrications come from. But undoubtedly he is hoping that people will simply accept that Hitler's Nazis were left wingers because of the name National Socialist. But as you suggest, the facts unfortunately tell a different story.

In fact, historically, the Nazis under Hitler viciously opposed socialism and there is a long historical record supporting this. When the Nazis came to power, they had one central opposition – namely the Communist Party of Germany which was established by old school Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg, although the party grew to take on a more authoritarian stance later. After Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he called for an election in 1933 and a week before the election, the Reichstag building burned down which Hitler claimed was a communist conspiracy so he called for Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree which curbed civil liberties and allowed Hitler to go on a spree of jailing communists. Doing that, along with surpressing the Communist vote – meaning a lack of votes for the central Communist Party - gave the Nazi Party the election. If de-legitimizing communists wasn’t enough, Hitler wanted to ensure the total elimination of socialist views from political authority in Germany. This was known as the Night of the Long Knives, wherein Hitler specifically targeted the the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party, left over from the pre-Hitler days. The central figure behind the element, Otto Strasser had already been expelled as far back as 1930, Hitler took this even further, ultimately executing the leader of the left wing movement Ernst Rohm, because of Rohm's desire to "redistribute wealth" and impose a socialist platform.

Nationalization was fairly common after the Great Depression and like many other countries, Germany had taken part in attempts to nationalize some resources. What made Germany under the Nazis uniquely different from other western capitalist countries during that same time was their push to transfer ownership of firms to the private sector. In fact, 1934-1937 were crucial years of re-privitization in Germany which saw railways, steel and mining, banking, ship building, and shipping lines placed into private hands. This was a policy that turned, in one particular case, the largest publicly owned business in the world at the time (German Railways or the Deutsche Reichsbahn) into a privately run organization. Indeed, government did intervene in markets as we have seen throughout all historical examples of right-wing capitalist, industrial-based societies. As Claude Guillebaud put it at the time: “the State in fact divested itself of a great deal of its previous direct participation in industry . . . But at the same time state control, regulation and interference in the conduct of economic affairs was enormously extended.” Gullebaud concluded that it was a “cardinal tenet of the Party that the economic order should be based on private initiative and enterprise (in the sense of private ownership of the means of production and the individual assumption of risks) though subject to guidance and control by state.” Guillebaud here could very well be describing the kind of system that brought modern England and the United States to power, though Guillebaud is admittedly leaving out the particularly perverted way that the Nazi state “guided” private industry.

The fact is that wanting a small government does not belong exclusively to one side of the political spectrum. There are both right and left wing positions that call for a small government. Marx noted, as many anarchists who were influenced by Marx picked up, that socialism could only function properly when political power had been eliminated.

As for the left in the US being disenfranchised, I'm afraid the facts are readily apparent on that matter as well. The Socialist Party of America had decent showings during United States history but struggled because of things like their leaders being thrown in prison. Then by the 1950s, the party died out because the government began accusing citizens of disloyalty, treason, and subversion if they happened to associate with anyone who may have had some kind of vague link to communism. Careers were destroyed, and people were imprisoned. Is it any wonder that people stopped voting for the Socialist Party? Of course not - they were being intimidated and it's no coincidence that the party died at the height of the intense Salem-esque hysteria of the 1950s. Then between 1956 and 1971, the CIA was used as the national political police in very much the same way that Stalin used his own police squad, to illegally spy, infiltrate, discredit and disrupt "subversive" organizations - the vast majority of which happened to be socialist and communist groups - under a program called Cointelpro. The program worked and, in many ways, succeeded, in undermining both the Communist Party USA and the Socialist Workers Party. Ultimately, the left as a political enterprise in the U.S. were actively and persistently dismantled, discredited, delegitimized, persecuted, and shut away for decades. The groups and the people in it were made perfectly aware that their very security and their livelihood was in danger by holding these political views. The inevitable consequence was that a once vibrant community was basically reduced to a shell of what it was. This was exactly the intention of the US governmental organizations that were constructed precisely for this purpose - to disenfranchise the left from the political mainstream.

I think it was drbeachboy and others too who made a great point, one which hit me after that initial post.

In my own words, this kid could be praying to a piece of toast that looks like Al Jardine, for all I care, but he does in America at least have that right.

Which is one thing to actually celebrate, within reason of course.

Do we want kids too young to know much detail beyond what someone in authority tells them to be praying to a piece of toast that looks like Al Jardine?

On one hand the fact that he can be seen in public praying to something other than a mandated, state-enforced religion or religious figure is a testament to America, actually. It's why certain things were set up as they were.

Again...within reason.

But consider the fate of a kid like this if he just happened to be born in, say, any number of countries or societies in the Middle East where you were mandated by the ruling parties to be a devout follower of Islam, follow the teachings of the Koran, and anyone outside of that would be an infidel...and worshiping or praying to anyone but Muhammed in some Islamic cultures is punishable by death.

So it's good the little guy in the video is a kid in a society that doesn't rule over its citizens' religious decisions with a penalty of death hanging over their heads if they choose to publicly worship something or someone other than what the Koran tells them.

I just felt it necessary to point out how some may balk at seeing an American elected official prayed to as near-divinity, if that's indeed what we see in the video. Again, pray to versus pray for, that's the dividing line.

But even so, let's say we get some kind of divine epiphany sitting in a diner and a slice of toast looks like Al Jardine, so we take to YouTube praising the Jardine toast in our own quasi-religious or overtly religious way.

In America, most people may laugh then dismiss than do anything, but we won't have that threat of a local Mullah issuing a fatwah against us for blasphemy or for being an infidel, thus punishable by death.

So that's one thing we have going for us.  :)

Just as long as it doesn't reach the level of a Hirohito where the general public believed (or was led to believe) that their political leader was not only divine, but also that when he spoke they were hearing the words of a god, and the set of circumstances which put that man in power in Japan were the result of divine fate.

That's some heavy stuff. Hope it never happens where I'm living.

As long as the kid isn't forced by the government to pray to Obama, then nothing is wrong. It is up to his family to steer him in his search to pray to a deity. At the same time you don't want the government dictating who or what you pray to. Government is not supposed to be here to tell you anything, it is here to enforce your rights as a citizen. At least in ideal conditions.

Right, that's my point. The fact that there are still societies in the year 2013 which are putting people to death who don't pray to what their government leaders order them to worship is far more disturbing than this video. And part of that problem is that the line between religious leaders and government leaders is blurred to the point where they are one in the same, and the government is the religion dictating the way the society works.

Again, the fact that this kid is in a society where he is not ordered to worship a certain way or in a certain faith is actually something to be happy about. At least I am. And we don't need to worry about this kid growing up to be a man and being forced to grow his beard a certain length to avoid some form of physical punishment under the rules of the government-mandated religious laws.

Indeed! Iran is a perfect example of what you speak. Church & State together is never a good thing. Our Forefathers knew exactly what would happen without separation of the two. The history of the world is filled with it.

That was apparently the key issue in the wake of Japan's surrender in 1945, in order to move forward there had to be that separation made clear so that no government nor politician in Japan's future could claim divinity and political power equally.

Note the recent events in Egypt surrounding the "Muslim Brotherhood".

Well, I draw the line at a piece of toast that looks like Bruce Johnston.  That would be disgraceful!   :hat

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mOeV0teDWQE/UPy9hio4u0I/AAAAAAAAA_4/lz1XMrW2Mx8/s200/7008760-closeup-toast-in-toaster.jpg)

Toast?  White bread.  Right-wing?  Hitler?


Ahhh... yes.  The "Arab Spring."  :lol :lol  Did it surprise anyone that Obama dug the whole rise of the Muslim Brotherhood?  The Left branded it the Arab Spring!!!  :lol

(http://www.colourbox.com/preview/3891303-418350-vector-spring-word-concept.jpg)(http://media.riktigparfym.se/2013/05/rabbit.jpg)(http://www.channelnewsasia.com/image/777018/1376507994000/large16x9/768/432/egypt-violence.jpg)

Which picture doesn't belong?

The entire "Arab Spring" bullshit was one of the worst loads of propaganda crap I've seen from the media regarding foreign affairs. To see the likes of Senators McCain and Graham playing along with this, promoting various things surrounding the Arab Spring and the Muslim Brotherhood, and expressing OUTRAGE (that's to signify how outraged McCain was on the Senate floor) that someone would bring the name of Huma Abedin into the discussion of the Brotherhood....well, let's just say everything I thought about McCain and Graham as cheap politicians was confirmed.

I guess part of me gets frustrated when it becomes a case of too many folks just not seeing things for what they are, or not wanting to care about what's going on. I compare it to a group standing around a raging bonfire, and someone says "that's not hot", and others start saying "yeah, that's not hot, right?" "Not hot at all!". And someone gets too close believing it's not hot despite the flames their own eyes are seeing and gets burnt.

Take Egypt for what it is, and note the reasons how and why it would come to a point of an American politician like Obama or McCain expressing even the slightest bit of sympathy or association with a group like Muslim Brotherhood.

Disclaimer: I read Diana West.  :)

Recall, of course, that no US leader, and certainly not Obama, supported the Muslim Brotherhood until it was politically impossible not to. Rather, the opposite was the case. The Obama Administration as well as other admins before it, in fact, supported gross violations of human rights carried out against the Muslim Brotherhood by the totalitarian dictatorship of Mubarak that the US was largely funding. Recall that the United States historically supported the regime that threw the central figureheads of the Muslim Brotherhood in jail, and imprisoned thousands of their supporters, eventually holding around 30,000 political prisoners, and preventing the right of fair trail and the right of free votes. The United States, as per their usual historical record, opposed democracy in the region (this is not only true of Egypt but of the whole region) and this meant supporting a regime that kept the Muslim Brotherhood as political prisoners. Then, also in keeping with the historical record that included supporting dictators like Suharto, Marcos, Duvalier up until they were finally deposed, when it became clear that it would only be an international embarrassment to continue to support tyranny in the region in the face of a transforming and increasingly more democratic state, the US did an about face and pretended as if they had supported this democratic shift the whole time. But really, it was only after the army shifted gears that the US got on board with the new regime and now once again, they are supporting the army, which means, ultimately, supporting a military coup against a democratically elected government, thereby supporting the restoration of the Mubarak military dictatorship (Mubarak himself is not involved but the coup is backed by key members of the regime) in the region which given the historical record is probably what they wanted all along.

How about separation of Me and State? Is that possible? (waits for the "love it or leave it crowd" to chime in)

How about the separation of everyone from State. But to do this you need to be prepared to actually acknowledge what that means and it also means being prepared to engage with real ideas and do real work rather than the self-justifying back-slapping intellectual exercises that is the contemporary American faux-Libertarian movement.

I don't view the Muslim Brotherhood or any of its offshoots as in any way a sympathetic group, or one to be sympathized let alone be supported or given de facto support by the likes of McCain, Obama, and whoever else.

Yet this issue is a third rail in US politics, where even putting out hard facts about what or who the group is and what they endorse gets blasted as having overtones of racism or intolerance.

I'm watching the events in Egypt and seeing several issues no one really wants to debate in the political arena coming to a head. If it has not already reached a breaking point, that is.

Again, though, they've never had much sympathy from US political leaders. To repeat, when the Muslim Brotherhood were victims of gross human rights violations, with tens of thousands of supporters illegally thrown in jail, the US applauded by continuing the fund the army carrying out these crimes. The reason why the US hasn't had sympathy historically for the Brotherhood is obvious. It clearly has nothing to do with theology. If that were true, the US wouldn't have historically supported Islamization programs. What has made the Brotherhood worthy of scorn by US leaders and targets of a rather sickening propaganda campaign which has, by and large, spread a great deal of falsehoods about the Brotherhood, is the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has historically come out in favor of social welfare and the interests of the population and, as a result, they have represented the possibility of democracy. These are things that the United States largely opposes and therefore it has been necessary to oppose the Brotherhood and support the tyrannical responses that worked illegally to repress them.

But those who don't support a state-mandated religion and a government working hand-in-hand or promoting a single religion over any others would have a bigger problem with the Muslim Brotherhood in theory taking government control over any society, no matter how positive their motives and social changes are suggested to be.

Would there be sympathy for a similarly-named Catholic Brotherhood or Morman Brotherhood political group seeking government power and control over a given country in a way similar to what the Muslim Brotherhood has done and is doing? Vote for us, we'll force you to worship the religion we mandate and enforce laws specified to followers of that religion. Wouldn't that be considered the ultimate anathema to those seeking a religion-free government structure? They remove not only the freedom to practice something other than Islam, but also the freedom not to practice at all, if the extreme conclusions would be reached and it becomes another example as we see in several Middle East countries being governed under Sharia law.

Or does the Muslim Brotherhood get a free pass on enacting and enforcing an official religion when they would assume government power in a society?

Again, just my own two cents and if you want to call it bias then have at it, but it's hard to support or sympathize with a religious organization who would seek power, then mandate a specific religion be followed by everyone in that country, and the extreme elements in that party may choose to follow the extreme tenets of the religion the party is named for...namely the treatment and views of women in that religion and the treatment of homosexuals and citizens who practice religions other than Islam.

It's quite a step to take from claiming intolerance within the US to having entire societies where people are punished and put to death for not following the strict rules of that country's mandated religion.

Again, I simply don't feel any sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood or their beliefs. And the beliefs can quite easily be found in their own publications, for those willing to seek them out.

That would be problematic in Egypt (or Egypt, under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood) if it were true but it isn't. The freedom of religion in Egypt was certainly problematic but not in the way you describe. In fact, those who practised Christianity or Judaism were as equally protected by the constitution as those who practiced Islam so this notion that "we'll force you to worship to religion we mandate" sounds scary enough but simply does not hold to what were the realities of Egypt before the military coup. The government did essentially outlaw one major religion, namely, Baha’is. That is problematic but where the religious laws were most conservative were the outlawing of blasphemy. Therefore the real targets of the religious law in Egypt were not those who practised other faiths but rather those who practiced no faiths and those who were critical of faiths.


Obviously lots of problems though I think we are better off solving these problems by focusing on the realities rather than the fabrications, which gets us nowhere. Are the Muslim Brotherhood ideal? Absolutely not. Is it up to you or me to decide for the Egyptians who is ideal? Absolutely not. The fact is, the Brotherhood were elected democratically and if we care about democracy beyond just meaningless rhetoric, then we have to have to support it when we see it rather than encourage its suppression (which has been the history) or encourage the undermining of democracy and its reversion to military dictatorship (which seems to be happening now)


I agree that one should seek them out. Reading them will uncover the staggeringly gross manipulations that have been set in place by a vulgar propaganda campaign. In fact, a quick view of the opinions of the party founder Hassan Al-Banna works within a couple of paragraphs to undermine the general construction that we typically see.

I'm talking about the Muslim Brotherhood in general, not specific to Egypt. The core foundations of that group are seeking power then governing and ruling under Sharia law, which is strictly Islamic in nature and structure and does not allow for the freedom to practice or not practice religion of choice. Freedom of religion is as much the freedom not to practice as it is to practice. Under Sharia law, there is no other religion but Islam. Therefore, if you do not practice Islam, you are breaking the law.

If the concerns of those who worry about keeping religion and government separate are going to be applied across the board, then a group whose core foundation is built on following a specific religion and its beliefs through the laws enforced on that society should come under scrutiny as they seek to expand their influence.

My point, BB, was that we have no "state-sponsored" religion, currently anyway.  Our heritage may be "judeo-christian-etc." but we are not a "Christian nation".

This may be semantics, or rather some antics.

DrBB

I would say that the Framers of the Constitution were “rational” and “enlightened”.  Not “godly” but also not anti-god.

This is in contrast to the nation of spoiled babies that we have become.  You know, expecting everything for free and taking No responsibility for our actions.

Great point, and on the surface it plays into my concerns with a group like the Muslim Brotherhood whose foundation is based on a state-sponsored religion, in their case Islam.

If we are concerned with avoiding a specific state-sponsored religion as the foundation of a government, why then wouldn't it be even more of a concern with groups like Muslim Brotherhood seeking that very goal through their political activities?

Well, then, I think your problem is less with the Muslim Brotherhood than with that kind of Sharia law. I agree with you on that, by the way. However, that being said, there are variants to those who adhere to Sharia law and very crucial differences that often fall on generational lines. So, for example, second and third generation advocates the human rights aspects whilst the first generation advocate a more strict adherence to the Koran. These differences are crucial and well worth knowing when discussing the issue because when brushing off Sharia or the Muslim Brotherhood with one stroke, we risk throwing out the wrong ideas because quite possibly we could be talking about supporters of a religious identity but not necessarily supporters of a state-mandated religious identity. Personally, I think there would be better ways to go about achieving human rights but I'll take what I can get.

But again, we have to be quite serious on this discussion because from our point of view, our leaders couldn't care less about Sharia law. One of the biggest US allies has been for a long time Saudi Arabia, who are one of the most fundamentalist states in the world. Political opposition to (or support of, for that matter) the Muslim Brotherhood has entirely nothing to do with religious ideology.

That would be the ultimate goal, but clearly many people LOVE LOVE LOVE the state and its interference in all aspects of life.I'm only asking 'can I opt out?" I already know I cannot. I do, however, try to live as freely as possible in my personal life, and that means rejecting people who, having heard the arguments (non-aggression principle) still believe force should be used against me to do what they want (public schooling, war, whatever). So, yeah, I know you have to be ready to cut a lot of ties in order to live by your principles.

What are "my" principles?

Understood, but when you have any political entity seeking power through government whose entire foundation is based on a specific religion with specific laws and divine figures to worship and follow, and whose groups specifically name themselves using that religion, there should be even more scrutiny of their interests and goals because it is in direct conflict with the idea of avoiding a state-sponsored religion.

Yes, though, that is our idea right now and just because it is our idea does not mean that it necessarily needs to be applied everywhere. Personally, I think it would be best, but that means nothing. If it is their idea democratically, then we should support it. But if it is democratically opposed then we really have no right "scrutinizing" it.

Again, from an earlier post, how would the notion of a "Catholic Brotherhood" political movement seeking government power be received? On principle alone, I'd be as against it as I am the Muslim Brotherhood seeking power or influence, because it is based on one specific religion with an implication that this one religion is the only one that should be accepted and practiced.

There needs to be that separation, there needs to be that inherent foundation built around choice and the freedom to practice or not practice at will, and surely not to be governed under a specific set of religious rules from a specific mandated state religion.

Furthermore, recall that the targets of persecution in Egypt for years were the Muslim Brotherhood to the extent that it was illegal to form a party using the name. There is a strange standard which is far more critical of possible acts of repression than actual acts of repression that really did happen which appears to come from the sentiment (I'm not saying yours but perhaps a more general one) that the Muslim Brotherhood is innately wrong. Therefore when they are repressed and illegal imprisoned, it merits no response. However, when they are in power, we must be vigilant in ensuring that they are not guilty of the same behaviour that was largely supported when it targeted them.

But that's not what the Muslim Brotherhood implies neither in theory nor in practice. If there was a Catholic Brotherhood that was largely tolerant of other religions in the same way, then I'd feel the same way about it. I agree with you, there should be no official state religion or state-sanctioned culture as there essentially is in Israel. Nevertheless, I do not feel that I have any right to impose my preferences on other people, no matter how correct I think I am.

And isn't there an inkling that some of the impetus behind the uprising was a feeling that the Morsi-led Muslim Brotherhood government came into the political arena promising reforms and whatnot, yes - based on Islamic principles, only to enact and enforce a more strict version of Sharia law on those people who expected reforms and a more free interpretation of the laws?

Some of the analysis suggests the people thought they were going to get a more open or free government in the spirit of the "Arab Spring" label, only to find the reformers they elected reverted back to the more strict and less tolerant tenets of Islam and Sharia law when it actually came time to govern and rule the country.

Thus, they felt cheated and/or duped and took action. Whatever we in the US feel, there is at least something to consider in the way the Muslim Brotherhood can campaign and advertise any way they want to sell themselves for popular elections, but when push actually came to shove they were more in line with the stricter Islamic governments and started to rule as such rather than what they told the voters to get elected.

Sounds familiar.  :)

In all seriousness, though, it comes down to the overt and singular religious factor for me in my opposition to groups like Muslim Brotherhood.

But I ask, where is the tolerance for other religions or religious beliefs if not the right to choose not to believe in the tenets of Islam? If we're being specific to the religion of the Muslim Brotherhood alone, the religion they are founded on demands absolute devotion to Muhammed and his teachings, and of course the concept of monotheism is not exclusive to Islam alone, but it is the issue at hand when discussing the Muslim Brotherhood's political aspirations and activities.

Grillo, Maybe it’s not that people want to love the state, just that no one’s figured out a better way to fund roads, bridges, airports, police, firemen, and yes military.  Are you saying you want to opt out of roads?  LOL

Yes, absolutely, which suggests that the people who were protesting Morsi would be undoubtedly horrified by the coup that has followed which has led to a re-instatement of the far worse totalitarian regime that was ousted several years ago.


There was certainly nothing under Morsi which suggested the same kind of atrocities and gross human rights violations that occurred under the US-supported Mubarak. The fact is that whether or not the people like Morsi, there was no indication that the government was going to operate without elections, as was the case with Mubarak, who ruled authoritatively, jailing tens of thousands of dissidents, illegally constructing detention centres, rejecting institutions on the basis of ideology, for nearly three decades as a result of critical US support. Democracy doesn't come easy, especially not after thirty years of a totalitarian dictatorship. The facts are that Morsi was influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood and also that he was presiding over a more democratic state that what had existed in Egypt before. Perhaps what this problematically suggests is that even with all the problems of the Muslim Brotherhood, which I acknowledge, they are far better able to achieve a democratic state rather than a US-client who are, by and large, totalitarian in nature. Obviously the road to a more civil society would be a long one and I say would be because the chances of that have become reduced in the last few weeks given the destruction of the achievements of the last few years, including a suspension of the constitution and a return to the victimization of the former dissident parties with perhaps some added depravity this time around.

This is why I don't particularly understand this characterization on the Muslim Brotherhood. Sure, they're problematic but in Egypt their role has been primarily the victim of totalitarianism not perpetrators of it. That they should be the ones we concentrate our critiques on when they have been historically victimized by being thrown in jail illegally as dissidents, being prohibited by law from running in elections, been removed from democratically achieved power by a coup, and have been once again overwhelmingly the victims of military and state violence. It is a real achievement in propaganda that we should use this moment to focus our critique on this group.

People DO have that right.


No, it isn't because Egypt was ruled by figure largely influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood and was tolerant of many other religious views. So, again, that statement is simply untrue both in theory and in practice.

Check some of the details around Morsi assuming power after the elections. First, he issued an edict stating that anything he ruled or decreed would be free from judicial review...even temporarily, that is suspending the system of checks and balances key to any democratic government. Beyond that, there were entire bodies of the Egyptian legislature, yet another check-and-balance apparatus, disbanded or simply rendered impotent against the rule of Morsi's "executive branch". Third, Morsi campaigned on inclusiveness and tolerance of other religions and religious interests within Egypt, including Egyptian Christian groups and various "wings" of the Islamic political spectrum in Egypt. Yet he included none of them, and basically ignored their input and even their calls to have input at all into the new constitution. This directly contradicted what he said he and the Brotherhood would do to help right the wrongs of previous leadership.

Plus, there were reports coming from Egypt that pro-Brotherhood and pro-Morsi interests were in the name of the new Morsi government actively seeking out and punishing critics of Morsi and his new government, including beatings, arrests, imprisonments, and basically it felt to may Egyptians like a replay of the same events that led them to oust the previous leadership regime.

In some cases, Morsi's actions and conduct when in office felt to some like he was creating a dictatorship and establishing a totalitarian government where his words and edicts were subject to no judicial reviews or challenges, his more vocal opponents were being arrested and beaten, and his actions dismantled and disabled entire legislative branches of the government which the people had also elected to serve.

So, again, let's not feel too sorry for a guy and his regime when we look into how he was conducting his affairs and how it stood to affect the people who had voted for him as a reformer and agent of change, or simply to right the wrongs of his predecessors.

Or to sum up, the Egyptian political group who were victims of totalitarianism (Muslim Brotherhood) under previous regimes began governing like those same totalitarian regimes they replaced.

Is a follower of Islam allowed under Sharia law to publicly criticize or challenge Islam? If they do in these cases they're at best labeled an "infidel", at worst and when taken to the extreme they have a "Fatwa" issued against them which is basically a death warrant issued by an Islamic religious leader. These who have received a Fatwa against them calling for their death or having a bounty placed on their head for criticizing or insulting Islam have included everyone from Muslim women journalists and activists campaigning for womens' rights under Islam, an Iranian rap artist, a European cartoonist, and most famously author Salman Rushdie.

Forgive me, but that's an obscenity and truly offensive to those who experienced first hand what was perhaps the worst dictatorship in the region for three decades. To draw such a comparison is remarkably misleading. First of all, your first point that Morsi "issued an edict stating that anything he ruled or decreed would be free from judicial review" as you know was a policy that was annulled after a month. And yes, it was certainly a problematic but it was telling that it was annulled - a sign of just how much had changed since the Mubarak days. As far as your points regarding the disbanding of "entire bodies of the Egyptian legislature," I am afraid I am unaware of that. I do know that Morsi actually reinstated the legislators that had been dissolved by the military. Incidentally, the coup has worked to dissolve the legislature. The point about inclusiveness is well taken but your argument that he was entirely intolerant of other religions is not entirely accurate as he did have two Christian advisors.


Yeah, personally I would like to evaluate those reports though I am certainly skeptical that they rise to the level of atrocities seen under Mubarak.


I mostly feel sorry for the Egyptian people who have seen their democratically elected ousted by a military coup and not their vote - a military coup largely carried out by the far worse regime that they topped a few years ago.

Ahh yes, the roads. Only the government can build, maintain, or develop technologies that allow folks to get around, right? There are literally entire books written about that fallacy, so you'll forgive me if I don't try to tackle that with one post.
However, as I've argued many times before, it really doesn't matter who builds the roads or who funds what.  It seems far more important to recognize that there is an organization at the center of society that's only way of getting things done is by using force, or the threat of force, and which forbids individuals from engaging in the very practices that it monopolizes.
       When the state is recognized as the violent, sociopathic institution it is it becomes easy to see that almost any other way of getting needs met would be better.
Consider that a quarter billion people were killed in the 20th century alone BY THEIR GOVERNMENTS, and that does not include war. Surely those murdered could have come up with a better solution. It seems obvious that the only kind of just relationship is a voluntary one, where everyone's needs can be met without force or coercion.
Anyway,
If you are actually interested in other folks' thoughts on these topics, I'd be happy to provide you with some resources.

The reports are out there, whether you accept them or not, that many of the Egyptians who became disillusioned with the Morsi government after voting him into power felt his government was reverting back to the same type of totalitarian rule that drove the previous government out of power. If that is an obscenity, the issue is with those Egyptians who felt that way, not those reporting it as such.

I'd suggest again that if the Egyptian public who voted for Morsi had received the kind of reformist, democratic, and inclusive government through his actions that Morsi promised them with his campaign rhetoric, the current events would not be as they are today. And some credit must be given too that they acted now, within a short period of time, rather than being duped and living under another potential dictatorship for three decades to come.

It depends on the interpretation of Sharia law. I would imagine in the more secular regions where it is practiced, or the areas where it is only applied minimally, it is allowed.

I agree though I do also believe that the flames were fanned by the totalitarian elements that had desired to get back into power.


They didn't act - the military as informed by former members of the totalitarian regime acted. The people protested but there is no indication that they wanted what is going on now and given that the new regime has essentially worked to turn with extreme violence against the population, I can't imagine this is what they were protesting for. Furthermore, you could argue that Morsi was presiding over a "potential dictatorship" in the same way that you could apply the same argument to anyone and, in fact, is the same rhetorical move is used constantly to garner support for the toppling of democracies.

Consider that over 20 million children's lives in Africa alone have been saved over the last 5 years due to international foreign aid. Governments can do bad things and they can do good things. Neither are particularly good arguments for keeping or getting rid of governments.

Is there any interpretation of Sharia law, no matter how liberal or conservative the interpretation may be, which allows a practicing Muslim to publicly criticize or challenge Islam? Or is there an Imam, or other leader of a mosque or Islamic community who is an openly vocal critic of the elements of the religion itself?

It's a perfect storm concept playing out where there are indeed two government interests, both the Morsi and Mubarek supporters, with various military elements loyal to and opposed to one or the other, and in the streets there are also groups of disillusioned and angry people who seem to have been caught up yet again in a power struggle between the current and former leadership where it seems they wanted to see neither of these elements running their affairs.

Some of the other elements fueling the general anger among the people, removed from the military power-grabs, include frustration at things like random electricity black-outs during a hot summer, and various other day-to-day complaints which are similar to those in other countries, yet all of these issues combined with that feeling of being duped into electing a fresh government and getting a new start have created a literal firestorm.

There were public protests in the streets against the Morsi government specific to these blackouts, because while they were somewhat expected in recent years, they became more frequent and lasted longer than in previous years, on top of Morsi campaigning that he would address the problem as a top priority in his government "within 100 days" of his election.

So there were citizens already in the streets angry and protesting the Morsi government, at least as early as May of this year, over this one quality-of-life issue which affected them and where promises of reform were unanswered. And the frustrations just snowballed from there.

At this point, it's hard to see a workable solution emerging any time soon in Egypt.

FAIL!
Are you saying nobody would help anyone else if the government didn't make them?!
Since the government can only use force to do anything (including 'good' things) it IS ALWAYS BAD.
Remember, the government is made of people. Obvious, but important. By your logic, only these amazing people in government have any desire to help anyone and, shucks, nobody will voluntarily give them their money, so they are just gonna have to take your money and do something good for you, because you (who is also a person) are incapable of choosing how best to use your limited resources. What a joke!

Good question. Possibly not but I'm not sure. The point though, is that it is possible. Remember that sharia can be significantly limited and used only to apply in very particular cases. But we don't really need to argue on this point because my hunch is that we are mostly agreement here. Personally, I don't believe that any kind of Sharia law is a decent way to organize a civilized society.

The government doesn't make anyone do it. If the people have a problem with it, they have the power to change it. But, no, that's not what I'm saying. But if you are going to suggest that the government is the direct cause of lost lives, then I can counter that they are the direct cause of lives being saved.


Totalitarian governments not democratic ones.


When you are ready to exit fantasy land and actually have a discussion like a grown up, let me know.

Yeah, I'll make sure to keep you posted.

Modern science renders religion moot. Outdated, outmoded, not needed. Mythical fairy stories written in ancient times.

That is a pretty bold statement, considering how many people on this Earth are believers of some religion or another. It might be moot to you, but when people are willing to kill for and over it, science still hasn't convinced everyone that it is outdated and no longer needed.

There's a fairly easy one as far as I can tell. Restore the democratically elected government which, as problematic as they were, were not arbitrarily killing citizens in self-proclaimed "crackdowns," and were adhering to constitutional principles rather than suspending the constitution. Hold them accountable through things like public protests which actually worked with this government. With Morsi public protests actually had an effect. With the military regime that it is now, it resulted in mass human rights violations and illegal detentions. Seems to me the choice is simple and if we actually cared about the people of Egypt, we would do best to focus on the realities. Pretending as if the central problem in Egypt are the victims of illegal totalitarianism will get us nowhere and can only perpetuate the central problems that have plagued Egyptians for decades.

Wow. You actually believe what you're saying, don't you?! And you say I live in fantasy land! Is it really that hard for you to look around and see that none, i mean NONE, of the things you claimed as a solution are even slightly possible, even here in the crappy old USA, where your government just passed a law that makes it illegal to protest (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-camp/anti-occupy-law-passes-nea_b_1343728.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-camp/anti-occupy-law-passes-nea_b_1343728.html)? But hey, just be vigilant, or, uh, vote for someone else, or get the right law passed. Get a grip! Time for some new ideas rather than all this 'democracy is somehow always good, you just wait and see' schtick which makes no sense. Why tow the line for the staus quo?

Again, you are not really engaging with what I'm actually saying. Rather, you are making up my position and throwing a tantrum over it. Again, when you are ready to engage like an adult, please let me know. In the meantime, you can familiarize yourself with what I actually believe in my "A Long History" thread.

Science & Religion are just two completely different things serving two wholly different needs.  Religion has served as the basis of morality and the building blocks of society and human understanding.  If there was nothing more to life than science we'd all be Communists or something horrible like that.  You know... "workers" just serving out our meaningless existence, usually for the pleasure of the Pharaoh or someone like Cass Sunstein.  We'd be whatever some opportunistic turds want us to be.

(http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/photos/sunstein_world_1.jpg)
Cass Sunstein

Lucky there's more to life than modern science -- or whatever the current limits of human intelligence can conceive.  As well, I don't like the term MODERN.  As if human beings have only NOW begun to live and understand the world around them.  It's awfully vain when you think about it.  Nothing more than a predictable fantasy (or lack thereof) of each subsequent generation to be shocked that their parents and grandparents had s3x and dirty words and stuff in their time.  Awfully, awfully vain.

Hey, Bean Bag, we might agree on something! It might be apropos of nothing anyone's said on here, but it frustrates me when people politicise science. Science is apolitical. Science was around before there was a polity. Why does a ball fall to the ground when you drop it? That's science. Why do x-rays take pictures of bones? Science. How does an aspirin dull pain? Science! How has evolution from fish to humans produced a male sex that is prone to inguinal hernias? Science!

The great thing about science is that it doesn't need anyone to believe in it for it to be true. Disbelieve gravity all you want, it still exists. Wipe human knowledge, and gravity will be discovered again. Wipe human knowledge and religion as we know it would exist in radically different forms.

There's no need to create a mutually exclusive culture of Science vs Religion, as if one would negate the need for the other.

I can't tell if Bean Bag is serious or if he's just the most dedicated internet troll on these message boards.

Can you call someone a troll in a thread that they themselves started?  Of course you can -- if it helps you feel like you one-upped me.   :-D

The real question, however, remains -- will you be open to my advice and add more balance and testosterone to your News coverage?

Right on!  And hey, we're also both probably incurable Beach Boy fans!   :rock


Well said.  Science should not be politicized, as it should be a study in the field of truth.  


Yep.  The definition of truth.  It exists whether we see it or not.  I see Christianity, a.ka.; the words of Jesus/the word of God as the same.  The Truth.  A lot like that good, common sense advice that our parents and grandparents gave us.  Stuff like "don't put all your eggs in one basket," "be positive," "tell the truth," "don't spend all your money in one place," "don't get drunk and run around with your pants off..." you know... good advice.   :lol

politizied science...

(http://www.ecuadorciencia.org/images/biografias/al-gore-angry.jpg)

DENIALSTS!

.

Let me make myself perfectly clear.  I think worship is a wonderful thing.  I personally don't participate in worship but I admire that those who do are able to find faith in that and hold on to something in that.  However, religion should never affect the way we think.  That's the flaw, that there are people who believe the bible, Torah, or Quran should be the final word on what is moral.  We don't even know who wrote those books and when's the last time any of them have been updated?

How can you admire people that find faith and worship, etc. in something that you find outdated, flawed and absolute?

Because it makes them feel good, because they don't use it as a defense mechanism, they keep it to themselves, and they don't think it's wrong to believe in something different.

One of the things I believe about religion is -- we can't avoid it.  If someone says they don't have one -- to me, that's their religion.  If someone says they're "a half-assed Catholic" or whatever -- fine, but that's their religion.  If they say they're a hardcore Catholic, good for them -- that's their religion.

That's basically how I see it.  Religion is just how we see things.  (Should I stop here?)



At the state level, this also applies.  I think it's pure fantasy to believe we can separate the two.  Ironically, as we attempt to do this... the State's ways become the State-endorsed religion.  Which is what the whole concept of Separation o' Church n' State wanted to avoid.  Currently, in the view of the white-robed State priests, Birth Control is good and right.  Therefore it's the Catholic Church that needs to "modernize and 'evolve'" or however they're selling it.

Likewise, you said you respect people's faith, if they keep it to themselves and don't use it as a defense mechanism, feel good about it and don't dismiss others who feel differently.  That's fine... but do you follow that advice?  Remember what your real religion is to me -- it ain't Judaism -- rather, your view of Judaism, with a dose of Stateism.  You said that Birth Control was ok and did not keep it to yourself.

To me, you're applying a different set of standards on religious tolerance for others than you do for yourself.  This is a common practice among Stateists Church followers.  (I'll stop there.)



 

This may sound a little better:

In my opinion,Modern science renders religion moot. Outdated, outmoded, not needed. Mythical fairy stories written in ancient times.

That sums up exactly how I feel on the subject too Alex.

But that is not the point. You may be absolutely correct in your assumption, but there are probably billions of people around the world who will disagree with that assumption and do. Until you convince those people to your thinking religion will always be an issue.

I'm not out to change anyone's beliefs or lack thereof. I was just expressing an opinion. I don't see religion going away anytime soon.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the science versus religion/faith topic can be found in medical science. There are many accounts of certain things happening in healing and medicine which defy science, or for which doctors have no scientific or medical reasons for how or why they happened. The term "miracle" gets used quite often in these situations where a doctor who would not normally use that kind of term in his or her field simply has no other explanation rooted in their medical or scientific knowledge.

I'm forgetting the man's name, maybe someone can fill in, but there was one historian who worked on the issues of religion vs. science extensively, but as he began digging deeper into the field of medicine, he gave up in light of what he found which could not be explained and which even doctors, again not usually given to reaching beyond a scientific explanation, attributed to something unexplainable.

It's not at all taking sides, but for those interested in this debate it would definitely be a topic worth looking at further.

Firstly, these kinds of statements are so vague and full of hearsay as to be utterly meaningless unless you can provide any kind of independently verified sources.

Secondly, let's hear no more about "science" versus "religion". That is also nonsense.

People tend to attach religious significance to anything thing science has yet to find an explanation for.

Firstly, the tone of this reply is completely unwarranted as a response to what I wrote. At least try to keep it somewhat respectful if something I wrote bothered you so much to trigger that reply. I can't see what that could be at the moment.

Secondly, let's hear no more after this of someone ordering others "let's hear no more". And since you quoted me, keep in mind that I'm only commenting on what others in this thread were discussing, and that was science versus religion, and offering up a related topic to look into if interested. Is there a problem with that? Tell those calling it that if you have such an issue with it, I'm making a suggestion. As far as what the discussion can be labeled instead of "science versus religion", call it Seamus or Patty or Joe for all I give a f***.

Thirdly, I can't recall the name of the historian in question, he was part of the mid to late 20th century, but i think it was "rockandroll" made reference to him and his studies a few years ago on this board. Once we get the name right, look into his history a bit and you'll see the part about him confronting medical science.

Fourthly, I don't always have THE TIME to list a litany of quotes and citations and facts to satisfy everyone on the fucking board's liking. Find some on your own. There are plenty of cases of unexplained medical happenings and mysterious healings and recoveries which you can Google search and read on your own, likewise previous debates on the pros and cons of calling them "maladies", "miracles", or "Seamus", whatever the case.

Fifthly, whatever it was that triggered the tone of the reply, I hope all that gets worked out.

If those people are religious or are devout followers of a religion, then wouldn't that make sense in their way of life?

The fascinating part for me is to look at those, like medical doctors and surgeons, who have seen and studied those cases which have no explanation, and may or may not be driven by the families of or the patients themselves claiming a religious "miracle", then they have to work out or come to terms with in their own minds what they just witnessed, and how to explain it.

To use an often-cited example, there is a difference between someone getting a slice of toast that looks like a religious icon and declaring it is a sign from above, and a doctor or surgeon watching something happen medically which goes against not only the science of such a thing happening but what was expected to have been the outcome based on the medical knowledge of the case.

It's trying to get into that mindset where everything you've been taught about something like cancer, or any medical condition, can be wiped out by things you see play out under your observation. *That* is the fascinating part for me, never mind whatever folks want to call it.

I think another fascinating aspect in all this is the role of the healer in Native American societies, as just one example from around the world. Even though the most commonly (conveniently) used term "medicine man" isn't accurate enough to describe their role, consider how the tradition of that person's position and duties within the tribe has evolved in some ways with the development of modern medicine, yet stayed true in other ways to past traditions. Those traditions have remained very much a secret, and those practitioners are not as open to even discussing basic details with outsiders, so exactly what those healing practices are have remained a mystery outside of the tribes themselves. Yet how many medical doctors would want to study and observe these healers at work, and their techniques?

I may be wrong, but I don't see near as much criticism or challenging of that tradition of spirituality and healing in those cultures, perhaps because so little is really known about it and the practices themselves are far from the public eye.

Literal readings of religious mythology is naive and immature.

The advanced science (scientia = knowledge) of our ancient ancestors was communicated through cryptography. They had a symbolic intuition that is acutely lacking among today's technopolists.

It's not as obscure and hidden as you think. Anthropologists have documented the principles and many examples. I suggest reading Mircea Eliade's SHAMANISM for a grand overview. And, also, Joseph Campbell's work A HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES is informative for its explication of the initiation ordeal that is obligatory in the shamanic vocation.

A principal teaching of the Pythagorean School was that God is universal harmony, perceived through number.

Until the Industrial Revolution, art, religion, and science were intertwined; the order of the universe was an ongoing study, later coming to fruition in the modern science of astronomy. But in the meantime, something fell away from science that had defined it for centuries—a connection with mysticism. Pythagoras—the Greek philosopher, initiate, and teacher—stood at
the point of the marriage of music, science, and mysticism. He was one of the first “scientists,” and as an initiate, he asked deep questions of the universe.

"Pythagoras and Music"
Melanie Richards, M.Mus., S.R.C.


Read the whole article here:
http://www.rosicrucian.org/publications/digest/digest1_2009/05_web/online_digest_pythagoreans_full_051109.pdf

...yes, but they also attach religious significance to things that science has already explained.  Such as how a baby is born.  Science got that fully explained.  Yet each child is a miracle.

Which, as I already fully explained -- is YOUR religion.  Science rendering fairy stores moot, is your religion.  A religion just as full of holes as any fairy story Alex.

If life were a puzzle, Alex -- and with all the pieces that science has tagged -- I don't think you or anyone else can even tell me with any confidence what you're building.

I agree -- science versus religion is nonsense.  The battle is acceptance.  As GFool alluded to, there are people "of science" who make room for religion.  AS well, people "of religion" who make room for science.  In fact I think most people who are religious make room for science.

For me, the point of this discussion is identifying and understanding the new religion of intolerance -- the Secular Progressive.  We're seeing that shadowy beast peek its little head in and then quickly hide.   :lol

I dunno, something that happens thousands of times each day, day in, day out is not a miracle in my book.
Atheists tend to get a bad rap as being people who look down their noses at religious people but to me it's just a set of beliefs like any other. The only difference is how a person arrives at that point. I didn't choose to become an atheist, you just become one by default if no religion rings a bell with you. Faith is either something you have or you don't, it can't be forced.

Science corrupted is technophilism. An interpretation of the Cult of Gadget: http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=26714

Well, I meant for my last comment to be somewhat in jest.  I don't think science has much of anything "fully explained."  Science is like explaining a joke... it's not funny when you do.