If you haven't watched the You Tube/CNN debates, you've missed out. Unlike most debates, the questions come from folks like me and you. No softballs, no audience plants. In fact, the last question asked was to Rudy Giuliani about how, as a Yankees fan, he could root for the Red Sox in the Series. (His answer satisfied me - he rooted for the American League, as I did, after the Yankees were disqualified) While we're on that topic, let me get this out of my system: The curse is over and so is my empathy for Red Sox fans. The Red Sox now occupy the bottom spot on my list, forcing the Yankees up one notch.
But on to more pressing issues. Tonight's debate cleared some things up for me. Namely, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate the Republicans could field that I'd even think about voting for. They won't field him, and, so, I won't vote Republican. Glad that's cleared up. I didn't know much about Romney or Hunter and I was curious to learn about them. I did. They're dead to me now.
Giuliani was on my list until tonight. And to his credit, he stayed there for most of the night, until he answered two questions. One was about why blacks and latinos don't vote for Republicans. Giuliani's answer indicated that they should because of what Republicans want to do with education in America. I always knew there was something I didn't like about this guy, and his answer clarified it for me. I agreed with his stance on most issues up to that point. I like reasonable gun laws. I like the fact that he doesn't really see abortion as a presidential issue, but still feels there are circumstances under which it should be legal. I like his focus on the issues at hand - crime when he was mayor, long term investments in infrastructure, and getting things done. I like a lot of things about POLITICAL (not religious) conservativism. He's a pretty good guy among his group.
But when he forced the issue of school vouchers and the non-existent alternatives to public education for the vast majority of Americans, thus pulling even more money out of an already bankrupt public education system, he lost me. This is one issue that not only affects the daily lives of many innocent Americans, but also dramatically affects our future. Public education is the best thing there is for 5-18 year olds in this country. In spite of the whining we hear from Republican candidates about how businesses have had to do more with less and therefore, government should too, both big business and government have gotten richer and richer while public schools, and the Americans who have depended on them have gotten poorer and poorer. Not only have schools still managed to gather intelligent, dedicated, creative and caring professionals at embarrassing wages to teach our kids, there is still simply no better alternative out there. Charter schools routinely close after a few years either because of corruption or because they simply can't provide the services that public schools provide for the money. Private schools exist in such small numbers that they're not even a consideration for even 10% of today's students. Even the handful of minorly successful charter ventures out there exist only for specific audiences by offering one-size-fits-all programs for narrowly targeted groups. There's just nothing better out there for the masses than public schools. And that's not because it's impossible to do, it's because public schools, by and large, are that good. No one can do what public schools do for the money. Teachers already work for embarrassing wages with embarrassing support and the Republican answer is to pull another $5000 per student OUT of that system for vouchers?! To subsidize religious schools or charter programs that haven't kept up?! It's simply not the answer. If, for one minute, America considered putting their money where their mouth is on education in this country, we'd realize that government really is good at some things. Public schools are a good example of that in education just as the Veterans Health Administration is a good example of that in health care. (In spite of CNN's week long attack on VA, it remains the best plan in America... for the record, it was even better before Bush repealed Clinton's Veteran's Healthcare Reform Act forcing VA to bring back the old WWII priority system for who received care - but that's another post) Ask Harvard... ask the NIH... nobody beats VHA health care. When we put some faith, some community involvement, and some money back into public education, no one will beat them. Few do now. Public schools are the living breathing example of doing more with less and all they have to show for it is more and more of the blame when every bit of accountability from parenting to counseling to babysitting is pushed onto them and more and more money is taken away. Never mind the fact that kids with special needs are simply not profitable to teach and so would become impossible to find a place for in the "open education market." Never mind the fact that while most of a student's money is pulled out of public education via vouchers, the public school district where that student resides is still strapped with providing that kid's transportation, books, and any costs arising from those special needs mentioned above. I'll end with some more public scrutiny on education, but let's move on.
The other nail in Giuliani's coffin was the great opportunity he had when a YouTuber asked all the candidates if they believed every word of the bible he held up in his video clip. Giuliani skirted the issue, as did Romney and Hunter (no one else answered) by saying he felt there was a lot allegory and metaphor in the book. He also added that the book contained a lot of wisdom that got him through 9/11 - a point on which I won't disagree, but that brings me to what I feel is the biggest non-issue in any election, except maybe for Pope, and that's religion.
There's simply no place for it, and thus no place for religious-based views on abortion or any other religious (non-presidential) issues in a presidential campaign. Period.
We're electing a man (or maybe a woman) to execute laws made by men, on behalf of a citizenry of men, alive on this earth. That man (or woman) has to sell himself (or herself) on the merits of qualifications for that job, not for his thoughts on the afterlife. In fact, I'm starting to be convinced that a belief in an afterlife should disqualify anyone from being a leader anywhere but in a church. And moderate religious beliefs like Giuliani's are the worst kind.
Yep. That's what I said. Let it sink in for a minute. Go ahead and go back to some old posts where I referred to God... call up the seeming contradiction... It's not seeming, it's a contradiction, although I will hedge a little here and claim that even that God I referred to in previous posts probably wasn't the one you think it is, but that's not the point here.
Religious moderation is what allows tolerance for other religions, which means those religions continue to fly under the radar of rational thought and discussion. Pick one. Let's use Islam for now. Moderate Christians who interpret their faith as tolerant of other faiths help perpetuate the divide between Christians and Muslims. There are a number of problems with this, not the least of which is 9/11... or that the bible allows very little tolerance of other faiths. Four of the ten commandments are about intolerance of other faiths... five if you count keeping the Sabbath holy (after all, it's a pretty specific Sabbath in mind there). Even the new testament calls for stoning heretics to death (and so you'll all have to line up at my door in order to follow Christian beliefs to the letter as a result of this post). Lucky for me, most Christians these days consider themselves moderate and will tolerate my opinions. Which is to say, most Christians are that only in name, not in practice. Those same people often claim that suicide bombers don't really represent the ideals of the faith they claim drove them to their acts. But it's precisely a belief in their faith that allows them to do what they do... because they believe in an afterlife at the expense of those in their current life. In other words, moderates aren't really religious; only fundamentalists are. Fundamentalists are pretty extreme and thus are seen by most moderate members of their own faith as irrational. I'm saying that moderates perpetuate that irrationality and what we need in the next elections is rationality. Back to the real point here, Giuliani, a seemingly rational guy for a Republican, had the chance to run away on this point, and he blew it. Nothing he mentioned until this question was asked had any connection whatsoever to any kind of faith, and yet, when faced with a question about it, rather than pointing out it had little to do with what any of them were talking about thus far tonight, he went with the status quo and lumped himself in with the rest of the candidates (except Paul) who said what they thought the conservative Christian right wanted to hear. Not because of any rational basis for it, unless you count belief rational, but because it polled well.
It's time to get over it. It's time we looked more at experience than religion in a candidate. The time to elect actors with minimal experience and all the right religious answers has come and gone. Sorry Senator Thompson.
Still don't buy my implication that religious faith requires irrational thought and requires the absence of rational discussion of more important actually relevant issues? Consider the British teacher in the Sudan who was arrested for allowing her students to name their class mascot, a teddy bear, Muhammad (peace be unto him)(I'm not making the same "mistakes" she did!)
As part of a lesson on animals, the class adopted the bear as a mascot. Students took turns taking the bear home overnight. They wrote a diary entry addressed to the bear by a name that they chose. Once all the diary entries were done, the teacher surveyed them and chose the most popular choice. The class named the bear and the teacher was arrested. Under the local law, she faces up to a year in prison and/or 40 lashes, from what I've read... FOR ALLOWING HER CLASS TO NAME A BEAR. That's what happens when religion influences the laws of men.
Apparently some parent complaints AFTER the naming of the bear brought attention to the crime. Where were those parents during the weeks of overnight diary entries? Why is it ok that that particular name is the most popular name for male babies in the world but not for a bear? Why was the teacher arrested?
Simple. Two reasons: 1) No rational discussion is permitted when faith enters the conversation. 2) Teachers, worldwide apparently, though I thought ours was alone in this, are at fault when anything goes wrong at any point in anyone's life.
Giuliani lost my support by perpetuating those two simple rules. Dr. Paul gained my support by effectively leaving them out of the conversation when his fellow candidates could not. I'm really starting to think I could vote for this guy... and that there's no way in hell I could vote for any of the other Republican candidates. Once again, none of my favorites will likely end up on a ballot.
I hope, for the sake of my grandchildren, there will one day be a presidential debate where these issues don't factor in. I'm reading a book about Da Vinci right now that puts human understanding into stark perspective. Poor old Leonardo was born at a time when it was believed that everything we ever needed to know had already been discovered. Five hundred years later a vast majority of Americans still operate under this belief. In spite of the gains we've made in physics, chemistry and biology, we remain frighteningly outdated in spiritual and emotional knowledge. Until we come up with a rational way to discuss these issues, we won't rationally discuss anything.
Instead, we'll tiptoe around for fear of offending anyone's religious ideas and we'll watch as religiously motivated violence continues now like it always has. 9-11, the Crusades, Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan... on it goes until one of two solutions arise. 1) India-Pakistan (or any of the others) erupts into a nuclear apocalypse or 2) Rational discussion replaces the faith-based dance.
I'm pretty sure I'll love my grandchildren if or when I finally have a chance to meet them. I'm sorry for the world I fear we'll leave them. I'm glad I won't be here to see the end they'll inherit. I don't think I could face that.
In the meantime, my kids and I put up our holiday decorations tonight. That's right, we too will celebrate Sol Invictus on December 25! (By now everyone who admits evidence into the discussion knows that Jesus was born in the spring... or January, or November, right?)
At least we can all agree on Santa.
Luth,
Out.
6 comments:
Well, I agree with some of what you said and disagree with some. Surprised?
First, W Charles is a Red Sox fan, I am a Yankees fan. I appreciate that you consider me one notch higher on evolutionary scale than Dubya 2. We Yankees fans have always known that to be true anyway.
You comment that moderate religious types are not really religious. I would agree that is often true. Their religiosity is often in name only, or to the extent it suits their needs, or used as a social status symbol. When Hillary waxes religious is she doing so because it is really embedded in her being or because she is merely trying to convince us religous conservatives she's really one of us? Same with Bush.
Interestingly, many conservative Christians have supported Guiliani even though he does not live up to their ideals of family values as demonstrated through his private life and even though he supports abortion which is often one of their litmus tests. There has been much debate on why that is. Romney seems to be much closer with his values to the Christian right, but they have rejected him because of his religious beliefs that they do not recognize as Christian. Much debate on that, too. So, I think there is merit to your claim that religious tests do not belong in the public square. In fact, I will emphatically say that I do not support religious tests to determine the validity of a candidate for political office and I base that on what more and more liberals such as yourself are saying.
"I'm starting to be convinced that a belief in an afterlife should disqualify anyone from being a leader anywhere but in a church." So, you would eliminate a major part of the population from holding political office? In essence I become disenfranchised because of my religious beliefs? I am now a second class citizen? I am the new _______ (pick your own epithet used to negatively define a particular race or ethnic origin).
I oppose the use of religious tests because if I use them, it can easily backfire on me. In a truly pluralistic society, we all must be heard and given voice otherwise we become an oligarchy ruled by the so-called intellectual elites who look down their noses at anyone who does not share their worldview. Then what happens when a Chavez-type comes along and is able wrest away power from the intellectual humanistic educator types who have no real power other than mind control? The Chavez-type will use a different type of mind control combined with physical power, a physical power that the effete humantistic educator types would abhor.
I too think Ron Paul is a viable candidate. I would much prefer him over Guiliani or the too-cutely-coiffed Romney
Luth, that was my post above. The only way I could post was to click on the anonymous category.
Ray
Ray, your comments require more than one reply.
On baseball:
I've always maintained a kind of respect for the Yankees. I guess it's because they were one of few teams who actually drew more than 5000 fans to Cleveland's old Municipal Stadium back in the days when you could watch the first inning on TV, then run up there and get a bleacher seat for $6 in the second or third, then wander around trying out any empty seat you wanted until an usher kicked you out. Ah the good old days, except that those Indians could barely break .500 over a season.
Back then, I held a soft spot for the Red Sox since they too had suffered a long championship drought... again, that didn't make me a fan, just sympathetic.
I didn't really develop a hatred for either team until the 90s because, let's face it, Cleveland's lack of playoff appearances had little to do with the Yanks or the Sox, and much more to do with Cleveland, but that all changed in the 90s. Though I still held that soft spot for Boston, that too changed in the last two years. It's on now. They're both at the bottom of my list. The only thing buoying the Yanks, I suspect, is that original respect stemming from the fact that when they came to town, it actually felt like I was going to a real Major League game! (We don't need them for that anymore, thank goodness)
As far as your disenfranchisement for public office due to your beliefs...
Yep. It's a newly formed opinion of mine. My search for big answers has taken a strange turn lately. The more I attempted to strengthen what I always thought was a belief in a god, the more I came up short. And the more world events convinced me I'd been looking in the wrong places. Recently, I've arrived at what I think might be a breakthrough. I'm starting to think that while my quest is indeed spiritual, it doesn't necesarily need to end in what I'm starting to feel is false belief... or blind faith... or something like that which I am now starting to see as very irrational.
I was probably a bit (purposely) harsh in that whole "disqualified" thing, but I would like to borrow from your reply to explain this new perspective I've arrived at.
When you mention pluralistic society and the need to hear all voices, I completely agree. In fact, I think we've covered this idea before. All voices should partake in discussing the affairs of man on this earth. But in order to do that, we have to go by the rules of discussion, namely, proposals, evidence, logic, and then try to convince each other of the best path to follow in light of that discussion. Hence my long held beleif that religion should be kept out of it.
From my newly found perspective, I beleive that modern religious moderates (myself included until recently) stifle more voices than tradtional oppressors. By "respecting" other faiths, we move them off the table of discussion. We agree to disagree, and to not talk about it any further. I once thought this wasn't a bad plan. But now that one extremist can tote a nuke and destroy civilization, I think we probably ought to re-examine this agreement.
We should be able to discuss religion like we discuss any other issue on which there is disagreement, especially when it relates directly to legislation and the day to day business of society. Religious moderation doesn't allow that. The brand of tolerance it allows comes with a void of discussion in guise of a "mutual respect" zone. But let's face it. If you believe your path is the right one and I believe another path is the right one, then we dont' really respect each other when it comes to something that each of us feels really matters. We just tolerate each other. That may work for the two of us, but we will also tolerate the extremist who, in the name of his faith, and because he believes he'll be rewarded for that faith in another life, happily destroys a market square, or city, or country, or planet.
When it comes to my responsibility to my fellow man, leaving a better place for my grandkids than the one I found, and all that kind of thing, well... I guess I just feel that that level of responsibility is worth offending people by telling them they need to leave their beliefs at home, or at church. Or maybe even re-examine them altogether. (Tell me again about this magical invisible guy who's primary focus is keeping you from believing in anything other than him?)
Man would be much more effective at reaching consensus on laws without it. We could probably even reach better agreement on so-called morals without it. (And if we take the Bible as the basis of our morals... sheesh, I know we can do without all that violence!)
The longer we preach religious tolerance, the longer irrational beliefs will preclude logical thought and the more likely we'll bring about the end of the world as we know it.
One obvious little inconvenience of this is the idea that many folks, due to their faith, don't have a problem with us bringing about the end of the world. I do.
I may be way off on my increasing suspcion of this book that predicts such an apocalypse. But back when I was a more diligent student of it, I never once believed that said apocalypse would be brought on by the ignorance of man, and his violent acts as a result of that ignorance. Floods? Maybe. Fire? sure. Plague? makes sense, but war between two religious groups who now have nukes? C'mon... is that really what God was telling us was going to happen? The same God over whom these folks are fighting in the first place? Is that God really that much of an irony fan? Even at the expense of his believers who get it right and do all the right things?
I can't accept that anymore. And I've reached this point at a time when that artifical end is all too possible.
SHORT ANSWER: Yes, I support preventing the majority of the population from entering the political arena. I propose we admit only those who are sane, logical, and who can present their case on the basis of evidence and rational discussion. If you intend to bring anything else to the party, don't come.
I'm now a notch below Ray, a supporter of the Evil Empire? Man, that really hurts. I would respond to the substance of your post, but your recent and irrational hatred against Red Sox Nation simply has me too upset. LOL.
I will try to get to more substantive matters later on, but for now I will say that I am considering registering as a Republican so I can vote for Ron Paul in the Texas primary. Now please pardon me as I try to grab something to keep from falling down after making that statement.
I've been thinking about your comments, Luth, and I am coming to agree with you more and more, but for different reasons and with different conclusions.
I tend to agree with you unconditionally on the concept of tolerance. Yes, it is the more liberal religious types that push toleration for other beliefs and sitting around singing kumbaya. I was in a Baptist church recently - not for a service, but to play an orchestra concert - that was very liberal by Baptist standards. They were an affirming church and proudly proclaimed they accepted everyone no matter what their beliefs or proclivites are. In essence, they had no standards other than toleration.
Where can toleration lead us? The world is a different place than it was a generation ago. Twenty five years ago, we didn't worry about religious extremists crashing airplanes or blowing up buildings or cutting our throats. Sure, we had other things to worry about, but terrorism was confined to the Middle East and not something we had to directly worry about. After 9/11, it seemed all Muslims became suspect. Unfairly. But, can you really trust them? Are they just waiting for the right time? Understand, I'm just asking questions, I work with Muslims and trust them completely.
If I demand my rights as a Christian, what about the Muslims? In a truly pluralistic society, we should all have equal rights. If I have the right to display a creche at Christmas time on the courthouse lawn, what about the Pagan who wants to display a Pentacle? Uh oh.
OK, so where do we go from here? I want my rights as a Christian. The Muslims want their rights. The Pagans want their rights. And so on. Disenfrachising certain groups isn't the answer, though. That will just lead to the oligarchy I referred to which will lead to rebellion and maybe worse terrorism than we have imagined. Why are so many Palestinians terrorists? Could it be they feel marginalized without a country?
Maybe we could designate certain states as set aside for certain types of people, much like Utah being primarily Mormon. Baptists already have the Bible Belt. Agnostics, or whatever you want to call yourself, can keep Ohio - you can have Cleveland all to yourself. Buddhists would naturally feel comfortable in the Northwest. And so on. Each region would be governed by the worldview most prevalent and would allow a certain amount of toleration of other beliefs. Not too dissimilar to the state religions of old Europe or even Colonial America. We'd be tied together with a weak central government.
I apologize to WCh. for disenfranchising him right out of the discussion, but his irrational "I'm taking my ball and going home" is exactly the kind of thing that usually happens when folks won't discuss their religious beliefs on the basis of evidence. (also LOL!) I hope, one day, when he gets over his baseball issues, he'll come back. (tongue planted firmly in cheek - is there an emoticon or abbreviation for that I could insert here?)
On to tolerance and the dividing of the world into religious zones - I think I agree with the root of your idea, Ray. It is a big world and there's plenty of room for all of us, but it'll never be big enough if at the core of our beliefs lies irrational irreconcilable differences.
If the most important driver in your world view is your religious faith, then you'll never really be tolerant of someone who doesn't share that faith. We can agree to disagree on the better baseball team. We can agree to disagree on political parties. We can have different favorite colors. We can have all of these differences and understand each other fairly well. Even respect each other, but I don't think we can do that with religious beliefs. They're too important to the people who hold them to agree to disagree on. We can act tolerant, but when it comes right down to it, it just won't work.
Post a Comment