Showing posts tagged religion
(Reblogged from randomactsofchaos)
(Reblogged from pieceinthepuzzlehumanity-deacti)
(Reblogged from randomactsofchaos)
(Reblogged from blissandzen)
(Reblogged from kohenari)
(Reblogged from diadoumenos)
(Reblogged from sarahlee310)
This is a beautiful example of privilege being questioned. For years Christians have just been allowed to assume that everyone else is a Christian — not everyone is or was. Christians were just allowed to make the assumption, to assume everything is closed on Christmas — of course it is. Now that they/we (whatever) are being asked to acknowledge that some folks are Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Jains or atheists this request is taken for an attack. It isn’t — it’ll be an attack when the commentators and pundits all proclaim that there are too damn many churches anyhow, and that their construction should be banned.

This is a beautiful example of privilege being questioned. For years Christians have just been allowed to assume that everyone else is a Christian — not everyone is or was. Christians were just allowed to make the assumption, to assume everything is closed on Christmas — of course it is. Now that they/we (whatever) are being asked to acknowledge that some folks are Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Jains or atheists this request is taken for an attack. It isn’t — it’ll be an attack when the commentators and pundits all proclaim that there are too damn many churches anyhow, and that their construction should be banned.

(Reblogged from whipporwill-deactivated20111220)

Why presidential candidates’ faith matters

themoralperspective:

“When it comes to the religious beliefs of our would-be presidents, we are a little squeamish about probing too aggressively,” writes Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, in his latest column. Keller illustrates his argument with a scene from a recent Republican presidential candidate debate:

Michele Bachmann was asked during the Iowa G.O.P. debate what she meant when she said the Bible obliged her to “be submissive” to her husband, and there was an audible wave of boos — for the question, not the answer. There is a sense, encouraged by the candidates, that what goes on between a candidate and his or her God is a sensitive, even privileged domain, except when it is useful for mobilizing the religious base and prying open their wallets.

Yet Keller is not buying this line of thought. He continues:

But I do want to know if a candidate places fealty to the Bible, the Book of Mormon (the text, not the Broadway musical) or some other authority higher than the Constitution and laws of this country. It matters to me whether a president respects serious science and verifiable history — in short, belongs to what an official in a previous administration once scornfully described as “the reality-based community.” I do care if religious doctrine becomes an excuse to exclude my fellow citizens from the rights and protections our country promises.

And I care a lot if a candidate is going to be a Trojan horse for a sect that believes it has divine instructions on how we should be governed.

As such, Keller has issued a set of well-posed questions to the range of Republican candidates. I’ll post an update if any of the candidates actually respond, though unfortunately I don’t expect that they will. Politicians have a knack for avoiding tough questions, especially when said politicians are running for office and the questions concern religion.

That said, Keller’s got the right idea. Religious beliefs often play a central role in shaping one’s moral and legal views, and so those beliefs — especially when they belong to a public servant — should be open to discussion.

Update: you can read more coverage on the blog Friendly Atheist.

(Reblogged from diadoumenos)
(Reblogged from sarahlee310)
[Their issues are] anti-abortion, anti-gay rights — but they also have … the belief that government should not be involved in social safety nets, that the country is becoming socialist, if not communist. … — All of what we’ve come to call ‘Tea Party issues’ of very small government. In the case of the Apostles, they believe this because they believe that a large government that handles the safety net is taking away what is the domain of the Church and of Christianity.

A new Christian movement that seeks to take dominion over politics, business and culture in preparation for the end times and Jesus’s return, is becoming more of a presence in American politics. On today’s Fresh Air, Rachel Tabachnick, who researches the religious right, explains its beliefs and influences. (via nprfreshair)

I can’t believe that this never occurred to me before, the idea that much of the religious right is against social programs because it prevents the poor from becoming dependant on the church and thus reduces the church’s power over the lives of the poor.  Oh my god. 

 This is me recoiling in horror.

(via morninggloria)

I listened to this interview.

Thanks to sarahlee310 Here is a direct link to the story:  The Evangelicals Engaged In Spiritual Warfare

(Reblogged from charlesdclimer)
(Reblogged from letterstomycountry)