Having taken a few days off due to suffering through a rather painful chest infection, I'm ready to make a come-back and do my part for Blog Against Theocracy. I'm certainly pushing the deadline, but here we go anyway.
-------------------------
In many ways, Glenn Beck is the fringe Right's new theological scholar, their preacher, their "savior" - in more ways than one, mind you.
It's almost as if he is seen as the "second coming" to many within the Tea Bagger movement. Sure, it can be stated that they aren't an official religion, but consider this - many of them ascribe to the 9 Principles and 12 Values that Beck brought down from his Fox"News" constructed Mt. Sinai he stands atop every evening at 5pm EST. One is more likely to see and hear people at Tea Bagger gatherings laud his accomplishments and his ideals. In reality, these alleged conservatives are practically violating the religious Commandment that states "Thou Shalt Have No Gods Before Me".
But what does Beck really know of values, principles, or even religion itself?
Recently, Beck has been speaking on his program about how Rev. Jim Wallace of Sojourners has attacked him, called him names, berated him because he told people to leave their churches if they preached "social" or "economic justice".
Since Beck links himself directly to the Tea Baggers, and has quite literally fostered much of the ignorance, hatred, and vitriol we are seeing from within that group, he seems to embrace this mantel of "conservative savior" with bravado and a sense of megalomania that would make Bill O'Reilly blush.
But let's consider how conservatives like Beck have contorted the stories within the Bible about Jesus, about his teachings, his philosophies. Certainly, this is not a new tactic for the fringe Right, as they did their best to use a portion of one sermon from Jeremiah Wright in order to create this illusion that he was actually some demonic figure.
Then again, isn't that how religion works? The Southern Baptists castigate the Catholics for their style of worship and connection with Jesus. And all traditional Christians see the Mormons ( of which Beck is a member ) as being people that have molested religion in order to justify their down ideology. So then, should anyone be surprised that Beck and his Tea Bagger followers not once mention the teachings of Christ, of his charity and promotion of good will when they are railing against healthcare reform? Has anyone else noticed that - a glorious absence of "Christ-like behavior" in literally every anti-Obama rally?
This is the new religion of conservatives. This is the new gospel to which they ascribe. Glenn Beck is attempting to distort the Bible and all the teachings of Jesus ( as most of us who grew up in a religious home were taught to see them ) in order to prove what? What is he attempting to show? How is assisting your fellow man so wrong?
Think about the story of the crowd that Jesus fed with one boys lunch of a loaf of bread and two fishes. Is that not a perfect example of redistribution?
I'm not a particularly religious person, but I do know when people use religion as a weapon against the greater good. Glenn Beck holds more power right now within conservative circles than the church - period. You are more likely to hear talk of his Alex Jones like theories regarding this country, our alleged values, and a blatantly revisionist portrayal of history than you are to how conservatives believe in how God and country are linked. This is a very dangerous concept.
Though they are not intrinsically linked, conservatives have literally began rewriting The Bible. Beck espouses the ideal that rewriting the history of a nation, of individuals, or religious scripture, is now a new pillar of conservative thought. He too is rewriting Biblical history. If one is to believe that teachings of Jesus Christ - of faith, hope, and charity - how can you call yourself conservatives and literally wave flags extolling your adoration for Glenn Beck.
This is the new theocracy within the conservative movement. Glenn Beck is their Jesus. Fox"News" is their Bible.
Showing posts with label Blog Against Theocracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blog Against Theocracy. Show all posts
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Politics Of Therocratic Rule And The Evolution Of Abomination
Over the past several months - the last one being the primary focus of this piece - there has been quite the discussion surrounding "Christianity" in America and the right for same sex couples to marry. And, as a peripheral component, the "church's" views on the death penalty versus abortion.
By default, the religious Right's primary rationale behind their refusal to allow same sex couples to marry ( and by futher extention, their reluctance to let them enjoy the same basic rights that any other American is afforded ) is groudned in the ill-informed notion that the bible explicity tells them that same sex couples are an "abomination".
Recently, I saw a fantastic documentary called For The Bible Tells Me So.
Here's the trailer:
The crux of the arguement between the religious Right and those seeking equal opportunity and rights for same sex couples ( gays and lesbians in general, wether they be "married" or not ) revolves around this notion of "abomination".
By it's strict definition, the word "abonimation" means the following:
While there are several mentions of "abomination" in the old and new testaments, many of these are no longer seen in the same light or are blatantly ignored as irrelevant.
Recently, there was a wonderful comedic piece done that highlighted this.
To provide biblical context to this piece ( something that the Right, en masse, continually espouse but never provide ) here's some forgotten "abonimations" from the Bible that don't seem to be such a big deal anymore.
So, cross-dressing is bad
So, do you think that Jesus and his pop are Fox"News" fans?
Recently, Sean Hannity - the good Catholic boy who claims to have never watched porn - advances a lie about Obama's defense budget
More from Media Matters
Aside from the religious Right's bigotry towards gays and lesbians, their desire to protect the homeland at any cost is another major issue.
Unfortunately, since Hannity cast himself in the role as "true-believer", a lie is still a lie in the "eyes of the Lord".
When reading the phrase "justifieth the wicked" I am reminded of O'Reilly's refusal to apologize for his comments surrounding Sean Hornbeck.
Guess that takes care of Red Lobster, and all your other favorite seafood joints.
There's a blatant hypocrisy within the religious Right when they attempt to toss out biblical text in order to defend their positions.
Yesterday, I saw an exchange between HRC President Joe Solmonese and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage debate on MSNBC's HARDBALL.
The video being discussed puts forth several lies and loads of misinformation surrounding same-sex marriage and the "problems" that it would cause. Think Progress has also addressed the fact that the people in the ad are actors, not real people.
Even Dr. Laura Schlessinger - a darling of the conservative movement - has recently told Larry King that she thought same sex marriage was a beautiful thing and a healthy thing.
The question to the religious Right has remained the same, and been just as simple to answer, as it ever has been - what are you so afraid of?
While their answer continually flutters between how they interpret an historical document that has been translated thousands of times over, comes in a variety of lingusitic variation dependeing on your particular preference, and has it's roots in a canonization process that was subject to begin with, as some ancient texts were left out from what would become the "Christian" bible that we all know today.
It is that same revisionism that drives the relibgious Right in all that they espouse.
Last night, as an aside to the same sex marriage issue here, I saw Pat Buchanan and Lawrence O'Donnell get into a heated debate where Buchanan appears ready to blow his top.
The discussion revolves around Notre Dames's invitation to Barack Obama to give the commencement address. While Buchanan sees this as a bad move - due to Obama's views on abortion and what the catholic church believes - O'Donnell brings up the valid point that George W. Bush was allowed to address the school multiple times and he used his power as Texas governor to permit the death-penalty more than any other governor had before.
Buchanan, clinging to his willful ingorance in regards to the Pope's view on the death penalty, continually insists that O'Donnell is the one that has no perspective on the Vatican and the Holy Catholic Church.
In all, the relious Right's desire to espouse and execute Theocratic rule, in virtually any situation where they dane it applicable, is indicative of their inabillity to see that this country was conceived under the separation of church and state.
As the Right loves to use the "founding fathers" statements in an order to prove that they somehow believed in a separation of church and state, it is interesting to note that Thomas Jefferson had quite different ideas than those that have sullied his name and his deeds.
There have been wonderful discussions in the past that show that many of our "founding fathers" ascribed to a Diest point of view rather than the "Christianty" that is practiced - whether in earnest of convenience - by members of the religious Right.
It is easy to see that our nation has always been more groudned in progressive ideals rather than the religious-regressivism that is continually espoused by the religious Right and those that identify with them.
Theocratic rule within the United States would bring about such a vast and sweeping change to not only the liberal or progressive constituancies in America, but the conservative movement as well. The idea that we could have any sort of advancement within those boundries is far from the truth.
To hear people conservative commentators and pundits speak of biblical text often conjures many questions in my mind - chief of which is whether they actually understand the passages or ideals that they are attempting to discuss. But, isn't that the point of the religious Right and the bible which they claim to hold so dear? It is a mindset who's primary function is to keep it's following ignorant to the world around them.
Those that use the bible as a tool of divisiveness can't possibly have the desire to truly live by each and every word, to create theocratic rule. Their lives would be effected just as much as those which they seem to despise.
By default, the religious Right's primary rationale behind their refusal to allow same sex couples to marry ( and by futher extention, their reluctance to let them enjoy the same basic rights that any other American is afforded ) is groudned in the ill-informed notion that the bible explicity tells them that same sex couples are an "abomination".
Recently, I saw a fantastic documentary called For The Bible Tells Me So.
Here's the trailer:
The crux of the arguement between the religious Right and those seeking equal opportunity and rights for same sex couples ( gays and lesbians in general, wether they be "married" or not ) revolves around this notion of "abomination".
By it's strict definition, the word "abonimation" means the following:
–noun 1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation: He regarded lying with abomination.
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.: Spitting in public is an abomination.
While there are several mentions of "abomination" in the old and new testaments, many of these are no longer seen in the same light or are blatantly ignored as irrelevant.
Recently, there was a wonderful comedic piece done that highlighted this.
To provide biblical context to this piece ( something that the Right, en masse, continually espouse but never provide ) here's some forgotten "abonimations" from the Bible that don't seem to be such a big deal anymore.
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Deuteronomy.22:5
So, cross-dressing is bad
Lying lips are abomination to the LORD but they that deal truly are his delight.
Proverbs 12:22
So, do you think that Jesus and his pop are Fox"News" fans?
Recently, Sean Hannity - the good Catholic boy who claims to have never watched porn - advances a lie about Obama's defense budget
More from Media Matters
During the April 8 edition of his Fox News program, Sean Hannity again falsely claimed that President Obama has proposed to "cut not only missile defense, but our defenses dramatically." In fact, the Obama administration has proposed increasing defense spending by billions of dollars over the amount enacted in fiscal year 2009. As CNN.com noted on April 6, "The proposed overall fiscal year 2010 Defense Department budget is almost $534 billion, or nearly $664 billion when including the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Aside from the religious Right's bigotry towards gays and lesbians, their desire to protect the homeland at any cost is another major issue.
Unfortunately, since Hannity cast himself in the role as "true-believer", a lie is still a lie in the "eyes of the Lord".
He that justifieth the wicked,and he that condemneth the just,even they both are abomination to the LORD.
Proverbs.17:15
When reading the phrase "justifieth the wicked" I am reminded of O'Reilly's refusal to apologize for his comments surrounding Sean Hornbeck.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
27 And whatsoever goeth upon his paws, among all manner of beasts that go on all four, those are unclean unto you: whoso toucheth their carcase shall be unclean until the even.
28 And he that beareth the carcase of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: they are unclean unto you.
29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
30 And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
31 These are unclean to you among all that creep: whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until the even.
32 And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed
Leviticus, chapter 11 and references to seafood
Guess that takes care of Red Lobster, and all your other favorite seafood joints.
There's a blatant hypocrisy within the religious Right when they attempt to toss out biblical text in order to defend their positions.
Yesterday, I saw an exchange between HRC President Joe Solmonese and Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage debate on MSNBC's HARDBALL.
The video being discussed puts forth several lies and loads of misinformation surrounding same-sex marriage and the "problems" that it would cause. Think Progress has also addressed the fact that the people in the ad are actors, not real people.
Even Dr. Laura Schlessinger - a darling of the conservative movement - has recently told Larry King that she thought same sex marriage was a beautiful thing and a healthy thing.
The question to the religious Right has remained the same, and been just as simple to answer, as it ever has been - what are you so afraid of?
While their answer continually flutters between how they interpret an historical document that has been translated thousands of times over, comes in a variety of lingusitic variation dependeing on your particular preference, and has it's roots in a canonization process that was subject to begin with, as some ancient texts were left out from what would become the "Christian" bible that we all know today.
It is that same revisionism that drives the relibgious Right in all that they espouse.
Last night, as an aside to the same sex marriage issue here, I saw Pat Buchanan and Lawrence O'Donnell get into a heated debate where Buchanan appears ready to blow his top.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The discussion revolves around Notre Dames's invitation to Barack Obama to give the commencement address. While Buchanan sees this as a bad move - due to Obama's views on abortion and what the catholic church believes - O'Donnell brings up the valid point that George W. Bush was allowed to address the school multiple times and he used his power as Texas governor to permit the death-penalty more than any other governor had before.
Buchanan, clinging to his willful ingorance in regards to the Pope's view on the death penalty, continually insists that O'Donnell is the one that has no perspective on the Vatican and the Holy Catholic Church.
In all, the relious Right's desire to espouse and execute Theocratic rule, in virtually any situation where they dane it applicable, is indicative of their inabillity to see that this country was conceived under the separation of church and state.
As the Right loves to use the "founding fathers" statements in an order to prove that they somehow believed in a separation of church and state, it is interesting to note that Thomas Jefferson had quite different ideas than those that have sullied his name and his deeds.
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802)
There have been wonderful discussions in the past that show that many of our "founding fathers" ascribed to a Diest point of view rather than the "Christianty" that is practiced - whether in earnest of convenience - by members of the religious Right.
It is easy to see that our nation has always been more groudned in progressive ideals rather than the religious-regressivism that is continually espoused by the religious Right and those that identify with them.
Theocratic rule within the United States would bring about such a vast and sweeping change to not only the liberal or progressive constituancies in America, but the conservative movement as well. The idea that we could have any sort of advancement within those boundries is far from the truth.
To hear people conservative commentators and pundits speak of biblical text often conjures many questions in my mind - chief of which is whether they actually understand the passages or ideals that they are attempting to discuss. But, isn't that the point of the religious Right and the bible which they claim to hold so dear? It is a mindset who's primary function is to keep it's following ignorant to the world around them.
Those that use the bible as a tool of divisiveness can't possibly have the desire to truly live by each and every word, to create theocratic rule. Their lives would be effected just as much as those which they seem to despise.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Blog Against Theocracy
I'll be participating in teh Blog Against Theocracy blogswarn to take place April 10th thru the 12th.
The theme [of the blogswarm], like always, is the Separation of Church and State — we are for it. But the variations on the theme are many...This is not a bashing of religion - peeps can believe what they choose, however they choose — but it is a reminder that the Government should keep out of religion, and Religion should keep out of the government.
More information can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Playlist Of Doom
