| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Municipal Land-Use Hearing Update | ||||
| ||||
Edit: This video clip doesn't seem to embed correctly on the home page of my blog. But if you bring up the posting by itself (by clicking on the title), the embedded video should work just fine. I don't know why there's a difference.
Amazing, isn't it? This is just freedom of religion, enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Nothing too important, right? Tell me, how could any American think like this? Can you think of anything less American than religious discrimination?
America gave the world the whole idea of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. We learn that in elementary school, for crissake! Is there anything more fundamental to America than that?
And these aren't just idle Tea Party lunatics, or Fox "News" entertainers, either. I already posted about Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey of Tennessee. That's bad enough. But Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and serious (or as serious as the Republicans get these days) presidential candidate? These are political leaders from, heaven help us, one of the two major political parties in the nation.
What does it say about our country that they don't value freedom of religion? I don't even care if they really believe what they're saying, or if they're just spouting off for the bigoted yokels who control the GOP these days. Either way, it's truly shameful.
Here's Gingrich:
There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.
Since when is freedom of religion, one of the bedrock pillars of American democracy, "weakness and submission"? Is this like the new Republican idea that the height of patriotism is to secede from the Union? (Frankly, I want to say, "America, love it or leave it!" And, "Good riddance!") The First Amendment helps keep America strong, not weak. Republicans may not cherish our American values, but I certainly do!
According to Gingrich, we shouldn't have religious liberty in America until Saudi Arabia has religious liberty. Of course not. We wouldn't want America leading the world, would we? Clearly, we shouldn't have religious liberty until every other nation in the world allows religious liberty. And we shouldn't allow equal rights for black Americans until Robert Mugabe stops discriminating against whites in Zimbabwe, huh? How foolish were we to unilaterally ban segregation?
For that matter, as long as Saudi Arabia discriminates against women, I guess we should discriminate against men, right? After all, anything else would be "weakness and submission," according to Newt Gingrich. As long as women are forced to wear a burqa in any country in the world, I guess America should force men to wear one. That will certainly show the world that we're not weak and submissive, won't it?
 |
| (photo from the Daily Mail) |
Islamic Americans are Americans. They are just as much Americans as you or I. They are just as much Americans as Newt Gingrich. And they have exactly the same rights as any of us, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. Their religious beliefs are their own business, and they have as much right to build a mosque as you do to build a church or a synagogue.
These protests should be a national scandal and disgrace. Gingrich's comments - and similar statements from right-wing Republicans everywhere - should be front page news in every paper in the land, with corresponding editorials denouncing this kind of thinking as completely un-American. Every politician who dares to say anything half as crazy as Gingrich should instantly lose all credibility and all of his support.
Freedom of religion is fundamental to our democracy. So are freedom of speech and freedom of association. This isn't a matter of right and left, conservative and liberal - not unless your idea of "conservative" is returning us to the Middle Ages. This isn't even a rational argument for debate. These lunatics like Newt Gingrich are completely un-American in their thinking. Every patriot in the land should be denouncing this kind of thing.
But instead, we get only Jon Stewart doing what's right. OK, that's unfair. There are others, absolutely yes. Many people are doing their best to denounce this kind of thinking. I'm just disappointed that it's not everywhere, a mass uprising of the American people, agreeing - whatever their political affiliation - that Gingrich sells America short. America is better than that! Freedom of religion doesn't make us weak. It makes us strong.
Anyway, below the fold is another clip from the Daily Show, a sequel to the one above, on the same subject. It's a depressing subject, so the humor is particularly welcome. Enjoy!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Municipal Land-Use Update - Ground Zero Mosque | ||||
| ||||
Posts
9 comments:
I think the same thing about most conservative views, "why doesn't everyone else think these guys are out of their minds?"
Ironically, the true Christian view would be to "love your enemy" or "turn the other cheek." If Christians are seeing Islam as the enemy, what could be more Christ-like then to have a Mosque near Ground Zero.
Yeah? The "true Christian view" could equally well be considered "onward Christian soldiers," torturing heretics, the Crusades, and genocide, John. It just depends on which parts of the Bible you want to pick out - and every Christian always picks out the parts he likes and ignores or explains away those he doesn't.
It's not coincidence that the same conservatives who are out of their minds on the mosque issue are also rabidly Christian. You may disagree with their brand of Christianity, but once you accept faith-based belief, rather than evidence-based science, every loony opinion is just as valid as any other.
But science has doing to say about morality. That is the realm of philosophy; And religions are nothing more than complex philosophies.
John, I would disagree that science has nothing to say about morality, since our moral sense evolved with our species. We are social animals, and our moral sense helped us live together. In fact, we see the basics of morality in other species of animals, too. We're not unique in that. It's... natural.
Of course, in general, science doesn't do value judgments. That's not its role. But you can't say that science has nothing to contribute in discussions of morality, either.
I would also disagree that "religions are nothing more than complex philosophies." Religion seems to be both more and less than philosophy. More, because religions invent a supernatural realm which doesn't, as far as real-world evidence indicates, really exist. And less, because I don't think that religious philosophies are particularly complex.
Secular philosophies can be complex, too, I think. I don't really know, because I've never been especially interested in philosophy. Too much naval-gazing for me. :) I do know that "complex" doesn't necessarily mean "profound."
To my mind, here's where religion really gets morality wrong: If your god says that something is immoral, is there a reason for that? Or is it just his idle whim? If it's the former, we should be able to use reason to decide for ourselves. If not, then your god could say that eating babies, or anything else, is moral - and presumably believers would agree.
In the latter case, morality is just a matter of following orders, nothing else. Obedience, then, is the ONLY morality. Genocide is perfectly moral, because it was commanded by the Christian God in the Bible. But wearing clothing of wool and linen is not. If you believe in dogma, "I was just following orders" would be a free pass when it came to morality.
Not for me. I don't care who it is - even if gods really did exist - NO ONE tells me what's moral and what isn't by fiat. I can be persuaded, but I can't be commanded. In fact, I think that it's actually IMMORAL to accept orders without thinking for oneself when it comes to their morality.
So, as far as I'm concerned, religious leaders have no more authority in the moral realm than anyone else. Dogma cannot be used to distinguish morality from immorality. Even if I believed in the existence of gods (which I don't), that would still be true. Religious leaders are NOT our natural moral leaders (if nothing else, the terrible things they've done throughout history should show us that).
Isn't it strange Bill, that atheists like us must campaign for the belief in the freedom of religion? If you have access to Netflix, rent Constantine's Sword, a documentary about a connection between the military and the Christian right. Many Christians don't want freedom of religion, they want to destroy the Jews and the Muslims. The documentary is about an ex-priest investigating anti-semitism at the Air Force Academdy. It's based on a book by the same name.
Jim, it's strange that ANYONE must campaign for freedom of religion, 200 years after it was proven to work so well in our society. And the fact that it's still in danger EVEN IN AMERICA is just astounding.
Like most minorities in America, atheists appreciate the Bill of Rights, especially since freedom OF religion necessitates freedom FROM religion, for those who wish it.
Luckily, it's not JUST atheists who support freedom of religion. I'm happy to work with believers on issues like this, in such groups as the People for the American Way and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
I don't have Netflix, and I don't watch many movies anyway, but I'm aware of the very frightening influence of the Christian right in our military, and at the Air Force Academy in particular.
Bill, you say that you can take this part of the Bible and end up with a good morals or you can take that part of the Bible and end up with a bad morals.
And you say that Science can teach us morals because we are social animals. but by your own logic, you can look at different animals and see good and bad morals.
I can look at elephants and see how if a mother elephant dies other elephants will usually end up raising her baby as their own. But then I can also look at baboons, some male baboons have been known to rape each other to show their superiority. Without philosophy how do you weigh which of these is "good" and which is "bad."
You say you don't have an interest in philosophy, but I know for a fact you have a very well developed sense of morals; of right and wrong. That sense did not spring from your head fully realized, it was influenced by many different ideas and philosophies over the years.
If I can pass one thing on to the next generation it would be combination of the the "Liberal morals" that emerges as the focus of this Blog and the Christian ideals as taught by Jesus, as you say not the dogma that has attached itself to those teachings.
I wrote the above and then I thought, "who wrote that?" Let me make it clear that I do not want to lose my Liberal beliefs to Christian beliefs, I want the two to supplement each other.
John, I think you misunderstood me. Generally, it's the other way around. Your morals come first. Then you pick the parts of the Bible that agree with what you already believe. After all, Fred Phelps uses the same Bible.
And no, you can't look at other animals and decide if they're being "moral" or not. Morality is a human concept and applies only to humans. But to some extent, you CAN see where we developed our ideas of morality. As I noted, science doesn't do value judgments, but it can help to understand why we find some things moral and some immoral.
I'm curious. What exactly are those "Christian ideals as taught by Jesus," and why are they so useful? Are they really something not found in any other religion or in secular philosophy? What are the "Christian beliefs" needed to supplement "Liberal beliefs"?
Post a Comment