I wonder if the "cut-off-food-stamps-for-the-poor" crowd ever think of those who are too young or too old, or too sick or disabled, or mentally or physically impaired to work for a living? Or if there are no jobs, or no jobs that pay a living wage? What are they to do if they are hungry, homeless, sick? Do we let them die? Do we put them to death? Do we mourn their situation? Do we celebrate when we no longer have to look at them?
Thanks to SecularCortex13.x
As I alluded in my comment to Secular Cortex's post, too many christians think that because they're "forgiven," they can get away with anything and their shit continues not to stink. It's very much like the morality they seem to subscribe to, wherein because their god does it, it becomes moral, therefore when THEY do it, it is also moral. This is the kind of behavior that comes of dicta rather than from an appreciation of the world as it is and people as they are. They see their association with their presumed god as LICENSE to act as they see fit.
And later they doubtless wonder why they're being called on their actions. Forest and trees, once again.
Joan, in the article, the author states:
"That’s one reason politicians love to talk about religion, because they don’t have to prove anything".
I disagree with that line. I think politicians love to talk about religion, because they want to demonstrate that they are one of "The Tribe". They want to create an "us/them" binary, so that motivated voters identify the politician as "one of us", and further that the other side is "one of them". This reinforces the concept of tribe (us), and is intended to keep the votes "in tribe". In other words, to vote for the politician who is espousing the religious viewpoint.
The author actually does state that here: "Being considered a Christian means you get a lot of unearned esteem from the public, and you’re given a lot more benefit of the doubt than if you claimed to be, say, an atheist."
What does it really mean to be "christian". With 2 millenia of christianity, is christianty anything like the hippy-like love-everybody Jesus that some promote? Like the elephant of the "blind men and the elephant" story, Jesus is many things to many people, and the sermon-on-the-mount character is just one version.
I like what Gandhi is reported to have said: I like your christ. I do not like your christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ".
The other factor is that those of us who question religion in general and christianity in particular need to hold those politicians' feet to the fire. We need to call them on their specious and vacuous statements about religion, demand substance and meaningful content when they would rather feed us platitudes and biblical bullshit. The boldest of us need to do so PUBLICLY, so that others can understand and at least begin to learn that it is okay to 1) question public religiosity and 2) hold our elected officials responsible for their statements in that area.
It's going to be "us and them" for a while ... but if we point out enough times that the emperor hasn't a stitch on, maybe those who have bought into the transparent wardrobe will start genuinely using their eyes.
Loren, you are right of course.
I would rather not envision the emperor as naked. Some things are just too horrible.
Daniel, I enjoyed reading the link to "Blind men and an elephant." There are so many versions, yet all seem to be based on the story originating in the Indian subcontinent from where it has widely spread, with different versions of reactions of the blind men. It seems the Jain, Buddhist, Sufi Muslim, Hindu, and modern stories come from this theme, including "Wag the Dog" a film featuring Dustin Hoffman and Robert de Niro.
Loren, I support your statement:
"those of us who question religion in general and christianity in particular need to hold those politicians' feet to the fire. We need to call them on their specious and vacuous statements about religion, demand substance and meaningful content when they would rather feed us platitudes and biblical bullshit. The boldest of us need to do so PUBLICLY, so that others can understand and at least begin to learn that it is okay to 1) question public religiosity and 2) hold our elected officials responsible for their statements in that area"
And Daniel, I don't want to see anyone spouting their delusions without wearing clothes! YUK!
Joan, that story is so effective at illustrating how our perceptions are flawed. Even with the same flaw, depending on where we stand - figuratively and literally - we can come up with entirely different, accurate, but wrong conclusions. I love the illustration, too.
Joan, there are Republicans who want to win elections so they can repeal FDR's and LBJ's social programs.
There are also xians who want a political party to write their social programs into law.
Repubs have since Reagan making the necessary promises and then reneging. Many xians are upset with the Party but have nowhere to go but back to their churches.
I will skip the long (since Eisenhower) history of the Repub Party's expelling moderates, replacing them in the 1960s with racist Southern Dems and in the 1970s-1980s with obedient evangelical xians.
Today's Repubs won't admit to their Social Darwinism and its enrichment-of-the-fittest. You have to listen to them and reason your way to that conclusion.
For Repubs to win national elections, Dems have to screw up badly.
BTW, I've heard many non-xians say, "Xians need Xianity."
"Of all bad men religious bad men are the worst."