No, you don’t need to check you calendars. It really isn’t April 1 and this really isn’t an April Fool’s prank. Rep. Paul Broun (R- GA) wants President Obama to designate 2010 as “The National Year of the Bible.” Here’s the text of the resolution:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as ‘The National Year of the Bible’.
Whereas the Bible has had a profound impact in shaping America into a great Nation;
Whereas deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testament of the Bible have inspired Americans from all walks of life, especially the early settlers, whose faith, spiritual courage, and moral strength enabled them to endure intense hardships in this new land;
Whereas many of our Presidents have recognized the importance of God and the Bible, including George Washington; Franklin D. Roosevelt; Harry Truman; John F. Kennedy; Ronald Reagan, who declared 1983 as ‘The National Year of the Bible’; and especially Abraham Lincoln, whose 200th Birthday Celebration in 2009 highlighted freedom for the slaves;
Whereas shared Biblical beliefs unified the colonists and gave our early leaders the wisdom to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, both of which recognized the inherent worth, dignity, and inalienable rights of each individual, thus unifying a diverse people with the right to vote, and the freedoms of speech and vast religious freedoms, which inspired courageous men like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to lead the Civil Rights Movement;
Whereas the Bible has been the world’s best selling book since it was first published in English in 1526, and has influenced more people than any other book;
Whereas the Bible has been a cornerstone in the development of Western civilization, influencing the nations in the areas of history, law, politics, culture, music, literature, art, drama, and especially moral philosophy;
Whereas the Bible, used as a moral guide, has inspired compassion, love for our neighbor, and the preciousness of life and marriage, and has stimulated many benevolent, faith-based community initiatives and neighborhood partnerships that have healed and blessed our families, communities, and our entire Nation, especially in times of war, tragedy, and economic and social crisis;
Whereas the Bible has inspired acts of patriotism that have unified Americans, commemorated through shared celebrations such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas; and
Whereas 2010 is an appropriate year to designate as ‘The National Year of the Bible’: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the President is encouraged–
(1) to designate an appropriate year as ‘The National Year of the Bible’; and
(2) to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture which has profoundly influenced and shaped the United States and its great democratic form of Government, as well as its rich spiritual heritage, and which has unified, healed, and strengthened its people for over 200 years.
I find it astonishing – actually, I can’t fathom it at all – that, in the midst of substantial domestic and global turmoil, this idiot believes that this resolution is worthwhile. He didn’t introduce a resolution (it’s probably far too much to expect actual legislation!) on education, health care, veteran’s medical benefits, economic measures, American global military commitments or any number of other significant issues. Nope. He appears to believe that the most pressing matter this country faces, having just completed a National Day of Prayer less than a week ago, is the need to have a National Year (a YEAR! Not a day, or a week, or a month – an entire fucking YEAR!) of the Bible. Presumably, the reason for this is that we are a Christian Nation, by God, and we’re not going to let any of those stubborn, wrong-headed adherents of other religions and especially those damned godless atheists (all of whom are going to roast in hell, all praise and glory be to the Christian God for his mysterious love, mercy and grace) forget it!
AARRGGHHH! Every time I resolve to start writing less about religion and more about positive aspects of non-belief, shit like this gets thrown in my face and I’m reminded of why religion matters, even – perhaps especially – to the non-religious. If Christians want to proclaim 2010 a National Year of the Bible within their denominations, and even across denominations, they should do it. They don’t need my blessing, nor do they need President Obama’s signature on fancy parchment. But, no, some of them aren’t satisfied with keeping their religion to themselves. They want to induce “citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture which has profoundly influenced and shaped the United States.” Citizens who profess faiths other than Christianity are expected to have special reverence for Christianity even though they don’t believe it, and citizens of no faith are not given any consideration at all. That’s not surprising, of course. After all, President George H.W. Bush said, “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.” As long as elected leaders like Rep. Broun continue believing that they can impose their religious beliefs on Americans at large, and as long as elected leaders like President George H.W. Bush continue using my lack of faith as grounds to deny my citizenship and the rights which accompany that citizenship, I will have no choice but to continue opposing the insertion of religious faith into public life.
If this resolution annoys you as much as it annoys me, you can contact President Obama and encourage him not to sign to ignore* this resolution. You may also want to contact your Congressperson and your senators to let them know how you feel about this resolution. It would be a good thing for all of us to remind them to keep focused on things that matter; a National Year of the Bible is not one of them.
H/T to PZ Myers
*Thanks to commenter Rene for pointing out my error.
– the chaplain
PhillyChief
May 11, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Outrageous.
I’ll have to sleep on what would be an appropriately worded letter.
I’m sorry, but these people are out of their fucking minds. I don’t care if this was for football, cheeseburgers, cars, apple pie, beer, whatever. Aren’t there any important things to address? Wtf is wrong with these clowns in office? Are they THAT out of touch with reality? Oh right, R-GA. Nevermind.
Rene Benthien
May 12, 2009 at 12:59 am
does this thing have any chance of passing. Surely just an attention seeking thing right? right?
The Exterminator
May 12, 2009 at 2:16 am
I think 2010 ought to be designated “The Year of the Iliad and the Odyssey,” and we could get a tax break if we buy stuffed grape leaves. Or maybe “The Year of Hamlet,” and the public could be given stimulus money to buy Danishes. I’d really like to see “The Year of the Catcher in the Rye,” in which we’d earn points every time we referred to someone as a “phony.”
quantum_flux
May 12, 2009 at 2:48 am
Socialism….you bet your ass that Obama is automatically humping any form of state-run or state-endorsed religion.
(((Billy)))
May 12, 2009 at 7:06 am
They should steal an idea from Disney: “The Year of a Thousand Bibles”. The year of the bible? Which frakkin’ bible? Which version?
Other than that observation, this is sickening. Unless, of course, 2011 is the year of the Q’uran, 2012 is the year of (fill-in-th-bland-with-whatever-holy-text-you-want), and on and on until all holy texts (2034: The Year of the Book of the Dead) have been similarly honoured. I am sick of Christian exceptionalism.
PhillyChief
May 12, 2009 at 11:15 am
Daily Kos has a funny report on this. I liked…
Hmm, clearly I would expect the sponsor of this bill to be gung ho for Obama’s health care plan. Or perhaps he’d sponsor a bill to raise the minimum wage, or to increase funding for the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program that provides food to low income Women, Infants, and Children that are at nutritional risk.
That stuff, of course, is from the lefty bible. The righty bible is all about personal prosperity and lording over others because you’re better, which naturally prompts its followers to shove shit like this down other’s throats.
Lorena
May 12, 2009 at 11:45 am
I think Obama is too smart to go for this. Even if he were a true Christian, he wouldn’t go for it. He knows well that bringing the Bible to the forefront would just invite more Islamic extremism.
the chaplain
May 12, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Philly:
I’ll be writing my letters tonight.
Rene:
Resolutions are primarily symbolic, whereas legislation actually has legal weight. The value of resolutions like this to their sponsors is that they encourage the religiobots to continue preaching the Christian Nation doctrine, as they give the religiobots something to point to when they say, “See we are a Christian Nation.”
Exterminator:
Maybe you can persuade your Congressional representative to introduce one of your resolutions.
QF:
He may sign it just because Congress passes dozens of similar resolutions (which are basically just polite gestures to various groups and individuals) every month. Since it’s not legislation, he may not see it as a significant issue. That’s why we’ve got to persuade him otherwise.
(((Billy))):
I am so not into any years for any religious texts. Besides, I think humankind may run out of time before we run out of religious texts.
Philly:
Great post at Daily Kos. I loved the line about living in “The United States of Jesustan.”
Lorena:
I hope you’re right. See my comment to QF for an explanation of why it may not be that clear-cut for him.
cl
May 12, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Don’t get me wrong – I’m annoyed – and Reconstructionist nonsense always scares me. Still, don’t you ever wonder if stuff like this isn’t just more smoke and mirrors to detract from the real issues? One potentially brainwashed Representative makes a move for religious polemic and happens to throw the independent thinkers in a little pissyfit. Great job advertising the Year of the Bible initiative; I think you should have wrote about whatever else you were planning on writing about before you wrote this.
Konquererz
May 12, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Hmm, socialism? Really? I thought they were all godless? Gee, no accounting for intelligence and knowledge.
Obama isn’t going to sign this. But I doubt it will make it through the senate and house. Why would it? In the middle of a crisis and some d-bag is concerned about a national year of the bible? What ever. Glad you are working to help the country. Glad you need a national bible year to boost your faith. What ever happened to humility? Virtuous indeed.
Mark
May 13, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Christians are stooping to desperate measures like this because the pews in the churches are becoming more empty and the offering plate is receiving less money.
Also…has anyone else noticed that there seems to be more Christians visiting atheist blogs lately?
I may be wrong.
PhillyChief
May 12, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Couldn’t it also be “smoke and mirrors” to suggest that sounding an alarm is somehow helping the problem, and that we atheists should instead be busying ourselves with other things?
Kagehi
May 12, 2009 at 4:02 pm
How about we have a “Year of the Constitution”, since these halfwits never seem to comprehend that document even 50% as much as they do their own Bible, and most of them don’t know the later well enough to tell if you handed them part of the **actual** text to wipe their own ass in the woods.
the chaplain
May 12, 2009 at 4:06 pm
cl:
What’s the difference between smoke and mirrors and bullshit? They both detract from the real issues.
Konquererz:
I hope you’re right about the resolution never making it through Congress and to the president’s desk.
Phillychief:
Are you suggesting that cl is a “smoke and mirrors” sort of guy?
Kagehi:
“Year of the Constitution.” I like that a lot.
cl
May 12, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Indeed, much like the proposed legislation and your reply to it. You start out by rightfully noting the importance of education, health care, veteran’s medical benefits, and economic measures – and you end up crying about the mean ol’ Bible thumpers hurting your feelings – not the importance of education, health care, veteran’s medical benefits, and economic measures. Hence, you’re as guilty as they are and playing right into their hands.
Your inability or unwillingness to understand or agree with me does not entail bad faith arguments on my behalf.
the chaplain
May 12, 2009 at 5:33 pm
cl:
I fail to see how encouraging the president and members of both houses of Congress to support secularism plays into the wingnuts’ hands. It didn’t do any harm to remind them that there are people who support the separation of church and state, since our voices are frequently lost amidst the loud wingnut chatter.
Your contention that I’m unwilling to agree with you is incorrect. We frequently disagree, yes – often vehemently so. Still, I recall a recent post, right here at the chapel (the one about the Yankee Stadium “God Bless America” business), in which you and I agreed on almost every point. We’ve also agreed on other occasions, even if they have been few and far between.
PhillyChief
May 12, 2009 at 5:35 pm
So cl, is it then wrong to ever point out problems or mistakes? Is that a waste of time?
cl
May 12, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Chaplain,
What’s not to understand? As I said, you began denouncing the Year of the Bible because there are much better things to focus our efforts on (education, health care, veteran’s medical benefits, economic measures, etc.) – but then you proceeded to devote efforts not into those issues – but more pissing and moaning about the Year of the Bible just from the other side of the fence. If “the wingnuts” can push everyone’s emotional buttons and get everyone pissing and moaning about the Year of the Bible, perhaps we’ll all forget about education, health care, veteran’s medical benefits, economic measures, etc.
That’s all true, and doesn’t sound like smoke and mirrors, trolling or evading questions to me.
PhillyChief,
Of course not SpeedRacer, you’re failing to see the forest for a twig here.
PhillyChief
May 12, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Perhaps you, who only ever complains and never instead offers constructive counter points, could explain what the differences between the situations when you act that way and in Chaplain’s post here. I’m sure we all could learn a valuable lesson from your wisdom.
Harry Tomlin
May 12, 2009 at 6:44 pm
The younger generations have been subjected to much less religious brainwashing than we suffered in the past. Now they can readily recognize the many impossibilities and blatant lies of the Bible. Some visitors to this site might be interested in a book I have just had published. It is, “The Gospel Truth: A Reality Check,” and pinpoints all the inaccuracies of the Bible. To check out my book go to:
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/TheGospelTruth-ARealityCheck.html
The Ridger
May 12, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Ronald Reagan, who declared 1983 as ‘The National Year of the Bible’
Sorry, then. The Year of the Bible has come and gone. Can’t have two: that’s what that “the” means, Mr. Broun.
the chaplain
May 12, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Ridger:
Oh noes! Don’t tell me Mr. Broun missed it!
the chaplain
May 12, 2009 at 7:02 pm
cl:
It may not matter much to you, but I happen to believe strongly that secularism in American government matters. It matters just as much as health care, education, etc. That’s why I believed it was worthwhile for me to use this resolution as an occasion to remind several of my elected leaders of that fact. Maybe you missed the final paragraph in which I suggested that we could do something besides piss and moan. I took civic action – the same action that I suggested that you and all other readers could take – and took up the issue of secularism with several government officials. What have you done, other than piss and moan about the fact that you don’t like my post?
cl
May 13, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Hey there. This is just a random comment to let you know I saw your question on DA earlier today and answered it, but Ebon won’t let me post it when I want, so it’s here. It’s a good question, and I gave it what I thought was a decent address.
Orion77
May 12, 2009 at 7:13 pm
I thought your process of writing was to unleash profanities in your draft and then before posting, review & edit out the cussin? You missed a few!
the chaplain
May 12, 2009 at 7:15 pm
LOL! Sometimes, I leave a few in there to add spice. You should have seen the draft!
cl
May 12, 2009 at 8:15 pm
PhillyChief,
You say I “only ever complain” and “never instead offer constructive counter points,” yet Chaplain says her and I have previously “agreed on almost every point” of her Yankee post and “also agreed on other occasions.” Chaplain’s claim seems to contradict yours.
Chaplain,
Freedom of religion and freedom from religion matter greatly to me, too – but nowhere near as much as education, health care, veteran’s medical benefits, and economic measures – and I didn’t miss your last paragraph. I believe you are a civic-minded and intelligent person, and now that we’ve discussed things in a bit more detail, I’m not as worried that the wingnuts might be successfully pulling your strings.
About what? Secularism in America? Education? Health care? Veteran’s medical benefits? Economic measures?
Kagehi
May 13, 2009 at 7:39 am
If you place higher value on education, health care, etc, than keeping religion out of government, then don’t complain when you find that you end up getting the “best” education, health care, and economy that the “church” will allow. I frankly consider the argument that its a “minor” issue to make about as much sense as suggesting we ignore the local witch doctors summoning of magic spirits and psychic surgery, and concentrate on good dentistry. Somehow… I don’t think the witch doctor is going to keep his fingers out of things enough to gain the later, or, if you do, that it won’t effect a dozen other things. Letting religion be implied as some sort of “solution” to economics, health, education, and so on, because its just “not important” means they are going to be picking your pocket, while your are busy making sure the cards on the table are regulation and unmarked. Either way, you lose, because they have 100 ways to try to get what they want, while you just have to let them slip through the door *once*.
You can’t put out fires successfully, if some idiot is wandering around dropping lit matches. You spend all your time putting them out, and none of it “preventing” them in the first place, because, supposedly, matches are not, “as big of a problem”.
seantheblogonaut
May 13, 2009 at 8:06 am
Chappy,
Cl once again attempting to make the post all about him. Make his day Chappy and make your next post all about Cl.
Oh and when did you change the drapes, I am getting a hunkering for wheatgrass
Lottie
May 13, 2009 at 9:33 am
I don’t think we can separate the former from the latter here. If we truly care about education, health care, etc., I think we need to be equally concerned about keeping religion out of those things.
cl
May 13, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Kagehi,
1) Where did I say separation was a minor issue?
2) Where did I imply religion was some sort of “solution” to economics, health, education, etc.?
As far as our society and my life goes, either way I win, because I’m forging my own path and doing the best I can with the resources I have.
seantheblogonaut,
Again you enable that which you decry.
Lottie,
Prioritizing does not entail separating. I’m not trying to separate the former from latter, and I agree we need to keep religion out of those things, precisely for some of the reasons Kagehi offered. I don’t need wingnuts to tell me how to live my life. As far as we know, religion is a want – which is something people can pursue once their needs are met. We need food and health care. We don’t need religion, and neither do we need its misuse.
Kagehi
May 14, 2009 at 4:37 pm
1) You didn’t. But, you implied that other ones that are “linked” so strongly, by nature of them having their grubby fingers in things, where more important, while ignoring the obvious flaw that you can’t “fix” something like health care if the people helping you fix it want “prayer and faith healing” to be covered as a valid alternative.
2) You didn’t. They do, all the time. You seem to want to ignore this, in favor of what atheists and agnostics have tried for the last… well, ever sense Aristotle questioned the validity of good coming from the gods, and “work around them”. You can’t. When you try to, progress slows to a crawl, often its hurled hundreds of years backwards, because the elephant in the room gets rough and stampedes everything you delicately built in the mean time, and any progress you do make is done while trying to make sure you don’t “startle” the poor thing too badly. Somehow, it never seems to occur to anyone that the *real* problem was the nice old ladies, or the group of kids sent by their parents, or the professional elephant handler, who insisted that its, “only a small elephant”, while gesturing at a 4 foot tall baby pachyderm, which is going to, once in the room, grow to occupy nearly every bit of *once* spare space “in” the room.
In other words, my objection wasn’t that you don’t think its important, its that you don’t think its “important enough”.
cl
May 14, 2009 at 6:01 pm
I don’t understand why you disagree with me then – if you do – save for the subjective claim that separation is not important enough to me. How can you possibly know how important separation is to me?
Let’s put it this way – all the issues raised in the OP and thread so far relate directly to all of our lives as Americans and as world citizens, if you wish to extend the analogy. That much I’m willing to bet we can agree on. In that sense, all of the issues raised (including separation) are of equal importance, because they affect us all equally. Now, given a list of issues of equal importance, to prioritize them does not entail that we’ve separated or otherwise minimized the importance of those with lower priority.
Not incidentally, I’m willing to bet that by the third consecutive week without food neither you, Chaplain, PhillyChief nor any other reasonable person would care about the personal beliefs of the person who offers you a piece of bread. It’s only amidst conditions of relative evolutionary stasis that people can argue about religion, and hopefully the larger analogy is evident.
PhillyChief
May 14, 2009 at 6:22 pm
A desperate situation doesn’t excuse, justify or erase wrong, and no one who’s fortunate should be made to bear their fortune as a burden of debt, repaid by maintaining the wrong.
cl
May 14, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Oh, hi Philly, welcome to the conversation I was having with Kagehi. Presumably the “desperate situation” refers to being hungry, but what’s “wrong” in any of my response? Who said anything about bearing fortune as a burden of debt?
That’s like me saying your previous hypothetical argument that I’m a “fucking asshole” is wrong because bees can see colors as low as 300-350nm.
PhillyChief
May 15, 2009 at 9:52 am
Nope.
Religious impositions are the wrong. They’re still wrong, regardless of whether your desperation forces you to have to endure them or not.
cl
May 15, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Problem is, I’ve not said religious imposition was right. I said after 3 weeks without food, most rational people wouldn’t care if was an agency of theocracy that offered them food. Rather, they would eat. I said nothing about religious imposition being right. People are saying I’m wrong for prioritizing equally important issues of food, health care, economic solutions and separation. I disagree. We can’t even have civil arguments about religion’s role in society if significant subsets of the population are starving, dying and broke.
PhillyChief
May 15, 2009 at 1:55 pm
No, you’re saying it wouldn’t matter. I say it would. I’d also say that it’s pretty sick to have to force imposition as a price for “charity”.
We most certainly can have discussions about religion or any other problem, regardless of the existence of other problems, even if they’re bigger problems. Your rationale is stupid, and more excuse making for leaving religion alone.
Kagehi
May 14, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Sigh.. The thing I don’t agree with you on is, well.. the Venn diagram, if you will of the situation. Most of the things listed are “equal”, in both the sense that they don’t necessarily “directly” effect each other. Bad health care doesn’t mean bad economy, etc. However, bad religion tends to not just be a parallel issue, its connected to “all” of the other issues. Having bad religion may “demand” sub-adequate health care (and often does, in the form of restricting access to condoms, or certain vaccines, or blood transfusions, etc.) Having bad religion can effect *if*, never mind *how* you try to solve economic issues. Having bad religion, pretty much by definition, means “some” problems are going to be seen through the fog of tradition and/or faith, and not in terms of the “real” issues. Its not an “equal” problem, its a spider web. Religions that refuse to deal with reality, invariably substitute gibberish to solve problems, and *that* effects all the other issues.
Its… like replacing bulbs, computer parts, TVs, etc. in a building, because they keep failing, and *never* bothering to check with the power company, to see why the electrical system is frying all your equipment. Why? Because its not part of “your” problems, its someone else with the problem. Yet, somehow, I suspect that, if it was effecting you personally, you would demand they solve the problem.
Your using the wrong analogy. Its not a case of, “What will you do if you where starving for three days?”, its, “What will you do if they arranged for you to only eat stale bread for three days, with the promise that, if you give in and do things their way, you will get ‘better’ food?” You have two choices: 1. Eat the bad food, but work to remove the jerks that keep you fed on nothing stale bread. 2. Give in, knowing that you **still** won’t get what you could have, if sane people where in charge, instead of people that are willing to feast, while keeping you beneath them, for no reason other than the certainty of their own self claimed “superiority”.
I would teach someone to fish, they would teach the same person how to stand in line and wait for less fish, to be given to them *only* by the guy that they claim knows the proper way to fish, the proper ceremonies to perform before and after, and knows the correct way to serve it. Because, only “they” can be trusted to do it right, their leaders said so.
So, no, your example is “not” equivalent. Worse, its the definition of, “All that is needed for evil to succeed is good men to do nothing.” Starving or not, you have to have principles. The moment you give those up, they win, and you become another sheep.
cl
May 14, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Yet, the secular hospital kicks me out to walk the streets of San Francisco with a tenting, 15-degree offset clavicle fracture, all because I didn’t have $20 for an X-ray copay I wasn’t told I’d need the day before – whereas the Catholic hospital generously provides and pays in full the $40,000 in surgeries and rehabilitation I need in spite of the fact that I did not have insurance. Your argument is a slippery slope one that fails.
Second, anything can affect “if” never mind “how” we try to solve economic issues, and neither religion nor its absence is any guarantee of the efficacy of a given solution. President Obama seems at least moderately religious; is he seeing “through the fog of tradition and/or faith, and not in terms of the “real” issues?” All you’ve made clear is that you think religious people are idiots who can’t separate faith from everyday life, and that’s nothing more than a stereotype.
PhillyChief
May 15, 2009 at 9:56 am
So the Catholic hospital enables you to continue being a skateboarding dumbass, allowing you to learn nothing from the experience and probably end up in need of similar treatment in the near future. Great.
Oh, and it’s hardly generosity.
I wonder if they’d be as helpful if you told them you injured yourself in a gay orgy. Just curious.
cl
May 15, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I wasn’t skateboarding and I learned much from the experience. Quipping to the contrary is just more assumption from an ostensibly scientifically-minded rationalist who claims to be led by evidence and reason, and not emotion. It’s interesting that you’d see $40,000 of no-strings-attached health care for a guy without insurance (that didn’t financially burden the general populace) as “hardly generosity,” but hell, maybe you really would rather starve to death than take a piece of bread from a believer. As for me, I’m just glad they put me back together again.
I wonder what you’ll disagree with next..
PhillyChief
May 15, 2009 at 1:58 pm
We have no reason to believe any part of your little story is true.
You’re right, the skateboarding story would be too cool for you. I’ll say you were talking to someone like you do in blog comments and they finally had enough and throttled you. Perfectly understandable, and actually, I would have an easier time believing the story then.
cl
May 16, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Nope, and the irony of you complaining about how someone talks in blog comments is… I’m speechless. You’re getting tired, and it’s showing. Just give in and accept me. We can work together to make Sesame Street a better place.
PhillyChief
May 17, 2009 at 12:37 am
Oh, if only that were true.
Kagehi
May 15, 2009 at 4:39 pm
“People” are idiots, religious people just have a more *respected* excuse for choosing to remain so. This isn’t a stereotype, its simply fact. When you use dogma and “tradition” to tell you what is right and wrong, instead of looking for sane definitions, you can justify anything at all. That hardly matters if the dogma or tradition is religious, or some stupid BS baseball players/fans do, or whatever. If it works, it becomes part of our body of knowledge, if it sort of, but not really, kind of seems to, if you squint just right, and you don’t know what is really going on, works, it becomes “tradition”, and morons spend the next 2-3 centuries arguing that you can’t argue against it, because its fracking sacred.
As for your experience with hospitals.. Its not just secular ones doing that. The problem is, in a nut shell, the same fools babbling about Christian rights in congress, don’t want anyone to have “basic” medical care, because that would cost the government money they could spend in their state, or in the fed, to promote their own pet project, and *they* can afford $20. In fact, they can afford to then turn around and donate $2 million to some Catholic hospital some place, who can then do what they refused to let the non-religious one do, and give you the bloody X-Ray. See.. The later is “Good Christian Charity”, while actually making sure such “charity” goes to all citizens, instead of just Christian run businesses and those that go to them, is, according to them, “Socialism”.
I personally don’t see the difference, other than that one is masked in religion, and therefor “acceptable socialism”, only, they will never admit it. But, its simply one more example of how some morons with warped definitions, warped by their priests, undermine rational choices. And, its the central point I am making. A few centuries ago, the biggest problem wasn’t so much the church, but the insane hierarchy of “Nobles”, who got to define all the rules and declare what was true, usually at the point of a sword, and no one could speak out against them. Sure, religion supported this, because it allowed religion to have power too, but the real problem was the dark side of so called Chivalry, which was anything but fair, just or rational. We kicked out one bunch of losers, but because the “other” bunch was “so important”, the founders waffled a bit, then finally stepped back and said, “Ok, you get to keep your priests, despite the fact that we see organized religion as nearly as dangerous and kings where, but they don’t get any say in how the government runs things.” Only one “tiny” problem. It doesn’t stop one of those “leaders” from running for office, and pushing their dogma anyway. All hail the new, church sanctioned, nobility! Or so *a lot of them* have, at one point or time, stated publicly they *wish* was possible.
But, you are right. Anything can effect how or if we solve problems. But, look at the track record for those trying to solve them with religion. If it doesn’t work, they lie and claim it did. The ones that do it purely because its right are a tiny minority, the rest, even if they didn’t intend it initially, turn what ever they do into a “way to get the message out”, and some go so far as to go to foreign countries, find starving half drowned people, then tell them, “Accept Jesus and we will help you!” Almost universally the vast majority of “religion driven” places will have “something” they will refuse to do, will throw you out for doing/being, or will ignore as an answer, in favor of something they “like more”, even if the thing they rejected actually *works*, and their solution doesn’t.
If a secular group had a reputation of doing these things, every place they went, they would be shut down, banned, and probably sued and arrested, for everything from negligence, to depraved indifference. Some of them might get off, but only because the judge deemed it more appropriate for them to receive psychiatric help. The track record of religion “as a whole” is not mitigated by the tiny number of people among them that don’t act like total idiots, nor would, in the case of a secular organization, *anyone* dare to claim that it did, or such a non-profit should be allowed to continue operations, just because “some” of its members where not dangerous or nuts.
Its a double standard I refuse to accept. My problem with your interpretation of things is that you seem to be “willing” to accept it, and not only that, you don’t seem to have a problem with the fact that they have so little awareness of the problem, it seems, that they all cling to the “True Christian”, “True Muslim”, “True whatever”, labels, despite the fact that, on the whole, the average person either can’t, won’t, or doesn’t bother, to find out why most of them claim that, since the loudest ones, which *everyone* notices, are abnoxious, sometimes racist, bigots, with deep pockets, odious social ethics, and a belief that everyone is doomed *except* them, and *they* are the ones convincing all those, “Well, I don’t really know the difference, but I know this guy says he believes.”, types to elect them to some office, where they can then turn around and tell you, “Sorry, but the government isn’t going to pay you $20 for an X-Ray, that would be socialism.”
Please, name “anything” as pervasive, generally one sides, willing to ignore reality, and sufficiently powerful, as religion, and which has the same level of influence. If you can do that, I will concede that my problem with people using it, as an excuse to push stupid ideas, is entirely unfounded, and our inability to keep it separate from government isn’t one of the “largest” issues.
PhillyChief
May 13, 2009 at 1:59 pm
True. Don’t feed the trolls, right? Doh, I just did! Damn. Oh well.
So let’s follow your initial claim about how instead of sounding an alarm and countering assholatry head on, we should instead focus on promoting positives. So then instead of responding directly to you, cl, we should respond by enunciating the virtues of civil discussion, logic and argumentation? Personally, I don’t see that working, just as I don’t see it being better if Chaplain instead wrote about other things instead of addressing this resolution head on.
cl
May 13, 2009 at 2:26 pm
First let’s address the stuff you’ve left hanging. For example: You say I “only ever complain” and “never instead offer constructive counter points,” yet Chaplain says her and I have previously “agreed on almost every point” of her Yankee post and “also agreed on other occasions.” Chaplain’s claim seems to contradict yours.
That wasn’t my initial claim. I wanted to know if anyone else perceives smoke and mirrors type obfuscations in these religio-political debates. I’ve never said alarms shouldn’t be sounded. I’ve never said we shouldn’t counter assholatry head on, and you should know as much by the fact that I consistently counter your assholatry head on. I have said we should focus on promoting positives – and such does not entail that separation is not one of those positives.
My initial claim was actually a question: If subversive and conspiratorial religious elements exist within our government, isn’t it reasonable to believe that it’s in their best interest to muddy the waters? Broun’s efforts appear as little more than smoke and mirrors – to me – and the more we whoop people into a frenzy about Broun’s efforts, the less we whoop people into a frenzy about food and health care. Like I said, as far as we know, religion is a want – which is something people can pursue once their needs are met. We need food and health care. For now at least, it seems we don’t need religion, and neither do we need its misuse.
Although this is probably just a roundabout way of calling me an asshole, I would actually love to hear you enunciate the virtues of civil discussion, logic and argumentation – but personally, I don’t see that working, either. Prove me wrong. Get rational.
Lottie
May 13, 2009 at 2:42 pm
cl:
Prioritizing one over the other separates them into categories of important and more important. I’m simply saying that freedom of/from religion must be an equally important priority if we are to avoid getting the “best” education, health care, and economy that the “church” will allow. (Thanks, Kagehi)
PhillyChief
May 13, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Let’s look at your initial comment:
I think that every time you comment on a posting.
You also said…
What’s amusing is the entire comment is effectively detracting from the real issue. Every subsequent exchange of comments with you further detracts from the real issue, and if you go to every post by every atheist blogger where you commented, you’ll see the same “smoke and mirrors”, the same attempt to distract and derail discussion of the real issue. That’s your M-O.
It’s an effective strategy, far easier than actually challenging the real issue head on. Rather people do something other than swim? Easy, just shit in the pool. Why waste time discrediting swimming or extolling the virtues of other pastimes? Plop a log or two or more in the pool.
Your comments are no Baby Ruths
Lottie
May 13, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I see what you mean, and I believe I may have inadvertently played right into it. I hope I won’t be excommunicated.
the chaplain
May 15, 2009 at 9:11 am
All non-believers are welcome at my chapel. I don’t count sins, require penance, etc.
Believers are welcome, too, but I prefer that they don’t proselytize – that’s a waste of time in these parts.
ArchangelChuck
May 15, 2009 at 9:38 am
I just lol’d. Hard.
cl
May 13, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Lottie,
Although related, separation and Broun’s proposal are two different things. If all you’re saying is that separation is important, I agree. If you’re saying rebutting Broun’s proposal is as equally important as the procurement of food and health care, I strongly disagree. I was just fine when Reagan declared 1983 the Year of the Bible, and I don’t think our 40th President’s declaration led to the consequences you and Kagehi seem to fear Broun’s proposal might.
All I’m saying is that we should be ever-vigilant against wingnuttery, as it’s easy to accidentally play into their hands. I was concerned that Chaplain may have been playing into their hands, so I spoke my mind. Is that bad?
Lottie
May 13, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I was speaking generally about separation.
cl
May 13, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I understood that, and appreciate the chat.
Lottie
May 13, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Shoot. I hit submit by mistake. I meant to also add that I don’t think Chaplain is “playing into their hands”.
No, speaking one’s mind is not bad.
Rene
May 14, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Just been reading a bit on US government. Wikipedia says concurrent resolutions are not signed by the President.
Kagehi’s idea of making 2010 the ‘Year of the Constitution’ is excellent. If this representative votes against that in favour of making it the “Year of the Bible”, it would be on his record that he voted NO on supporting the constitution. That gives something for his electoral opponents to campaign on…and that is an disincentive for Mr Braun to keep pressing on with the ‘Year of the Bible”.
the chaplain
May 14, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Rene:
Thanks for the info from Wikipedia. The resolution “encourages” the president to a) designate an appropriate year as requested, and b) issue a proclamation. There is no requirement for him to sign the resolution itself. Good catch.
I’ve corrected the post accordingly.
Mark
May 15, 2009 at 8:26 am
Isn’t 2010 also “year of the rat”??
ArchangelChuck
May 15, 2009 at 8:43 am
Did anybody else catch that CL referred to Chaplain’s post as a “Yankee post?” Last time I checked, the civil war was over.
the chaplain
May 15, 2009 at 9:08 am
Chuck:
CL was actually referring to this post, on which he and I found several points of agreement. It’s okay if he calls me a Yankee, though, I can take it – I grew up in the northeast, so, if the shoe fits and all that…
ArchangelChuck
May 15, 2009 at 9:36 am
Haha! My bad.
the chaplain
May 15, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Mark asked, “Isn’t 2010 also the year of the rat?”
Perhaps we should get our congressional reps to draft a resolution about it.
Kagehi
May 15, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Actually, no. Its the Tiger. If you count from 2000 to 2010 it was:
2000 dragon
2001 snake
2002 horse
2003 sheep
2004 monkey
2005 rooster
2006 dog
2007 pig
2008 rat
2009 ox
2010 tiger
Besides, it would have been much more appropriate in 2008, which Bush was still in office anyway.
In fact, the all of them from 2001 to 2008, other than maybe horse, seem to match Bush’s time in office, at least in terms of how we “see” those animals in the west. lol