It’s after 3:00 a.m. and I’m sitting here trying to write the post I had been composing in my head all day. I had great little news bits to work with, too; Salon’s helpful refutation of anti-Obama right wingnut talking points through the use of interchangeable left wingnut pro-Obama-sanctioned talking points, the American press’ defense of Baracko Bama in the face of the European press’ slam against their visiting meal-ticket and love object ’s trademark rude aloofness, Hillary Clinton’s “I’m Secretary of State ‘cuz he begged me,” Obama rah-rah, and other tasty little juicy morsels upon which to chew. I was so looking forward to giving verbal raspberries to the Sheeple Mind controllers for theior hysterical, “He Went!” “He Came Back!” over-the-top non news reporting. And, man, I was really going to enjoy ripping PUMA-bashing AOL blogger Tommy Christopher for lying about being fired for his part in exposing the ugly Playboy invitation to rape article they put up and snatched down in just enough time for it to go viral, when in fact, according to his boss, Melinda Henneberger, Mr. Christopher was relieved of his duties along with his co-workers when the company decided to go in a new direction and hire real journalists.
However, after perusing the news and the PUMAsphere, one particular discussion about turmoil resulting from religious conflict really started to stick in my craw, wherever that is. They omitted craw location in the human anatomy in my high school biology classes, but then, I’m from Chicago. Anyway, the holier-than-thou, “my God can lick your God” attitude inherent in a lot of the posts and commentary available on the web, really started to piss me off.
As our supposedly “devout Christian” Pretendident traveled halfway around the world to give a shoutout to the perennially at war Muslim part of our world, with a wink, nudge and a high-five thrown in for good measure on their behalf in their centuries old “struggle” against the Jewish part of our world who live among them, I couldn’t help but wonder, who are we, as a nation, in this age old Biblical drama? By what authority does our walk on water, heal the sick ObaMessiah now issue “git ‘er dun” edicts? Though we’re supposed to be secular, faith-based factions, now sponsored by the government, have long been working overtime to set our moral policy. And, since we’re the inheritors of the Greco-Roman Judeo Christian democracy legacy, we must be the Christians in this three-way dynamic. In fact, haven’t we always been?
Has America ever elected a non-Christian president? Putting a Historically Historic Feel Good You’ve Come A Long Way Baby Just Black Enough Guy in the White House would pale in comparison, (pardon the pun, or, not) to electing a Buddhist. Or a Muslim. Even though it seems like in the early days you could get away with being a non-believer, if you kept it to yourself, in our modern era, God forbid, if a heathen, blaspheming, atheist was elected, America would cease to exist as a nation in the minds of many, but that would be okay, since, the moment such an unGodly thing happened, the Earth would stop rotating on its axis anyway.
But, why shouldn’t it happen? Why shouldn’t we have a Native American, who practices his, or her, native religion, in the Oval Office? Better yet, why not put a black woman in charge, who practices the indigenous religion of her West African ancestral roots, the syncretized modern version of which is known to Christians as the pagan abomination, “Voodoo?” A white Wiccan woman should have just as good a shot at her party’s nomination as a white Christian male, shouldn’t she?
But, we know that’s not true. Hell, a white Wiccan worshiper doesn’t even have as good a shot as a white Methodist woman, which we learned last year was just slightly less than slim and none. You know somebody, in a back room somewhere, before deciding to back Obamboozle for president, made the un-PC argument that, of course he had a shot against Hillary Clinton. American will vote for a black guy waaaaaay before they’ll vote for a chick, if you package him right.
Only men can lead, because, we are a Christian nation. Right down to our “might makes right,” heathen conversion landgrabs for their own good with a Bible and a gun, we’re Christian, through and through. Sure as shootin‘:
Missionary work was supported by the U.S. government as a means of assimilating, or “civilizing,” Native Americans and has been seen as something forced upon indigenous people. However, in her article, “Christianity, a Matter of Choice: The Historic Role of Indian Catechists in Oregon Territory and British Columbia,” Margaret Whitehead makes the point that Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest “displayed . . . selectivity when proffered white culture. They could and did deal intelligently and profitably with the intrusive society.” Her article focuses on the free choice many Native Americans made to accept Christianity, while “Lawyer of the Nez Perces” describes how in 1831, the Nez Perces and Flatheads sent a delegation to St. Louis seeking information about Christianity.
Missionaries were not always successful in converting Indians. “The Spokane Indian Mission at Tshimakain, 1838-1848″ and “Lawyer of the Nez Perces” describe the problems of a group of Presbyterian missionaries in the Northwest, culminating in the 1847 massacre of Marcus Whitman, a medical doctor at the Waiilatpu Mission. The massacre ultimately led to the Cayuse War, which set back missionary work in the region for a decade.
I seem to remember the KKK was always pretty religious, too. Which makes sense, slavery and hating black people is in the Bible. Anybody who doesn’t accept that just hasn’t been properly shown the error of their ways. Of course, you may be forgiven for wondering, isn’t forcing people into anything, especially faith, a bad thing? Depends on where you’re sittin‘, little Buckaroo. If you’re one of the heathens “carried away without consent” by John Hawkins and sold into slavery for the “good of their souls,” you might take exception to it:
In 1562 John Hawkins, an English navigator, seeing the want of slaves in the West Indies, determined to enter upon the piratical traffic. Several London gentlemen contributed funds liberally for the enterprise. Three ships were provided, and with these and 100 men Hawkins sailed to the coast of Guinea, where, by bribery, deception, treachery, and force, he procured at least 300 negroes and sold them to the Spaniards in Hispaniola, or Santo Domingo, and returned to England with a rich freight of pearls, sugar, and ginger. The nation was shocked by the barbarous traffic, and the Queen (Elizabeth) declared to Hawkins that, ” if any of the Africans were carried away without their own consent, it would be detestable, and call down the vengeance of Heaven upon the undertakers.” He satisfied the Queen and continued the traffic, pretending that it was for the good of the souls of the Africans, as it introduced them to Christianity and civilization.
The above information is corroborated here. Were Hawkins’ actions sanctioned by the Church? No, just the Queen, who, being coronated, anointed, and given communion, as is tradition, is of course, kind of holy herself.
We tend to believe, for whatever reasons, that we, whatever we believe, are morally superior to other people who believe differently. They have no religion, at least, no worthwhile religion. They, and their God, or gods, are inferior, and must be “saved,” by any means necessary. And, it seems no matter how far back we go in history, the only thing that changes about the story is the names. My God’s bigger, better, stronger than your God. That’s why He gave me a bigger gun. Now, gimme all your stuff, say amen, shout hallelujah. Or, bend to the will of Allah. Or, obey Yaweh. Praise Jesus. Or, I’ll hit you with a rock.
Will we never learn?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRQb7zOeYWk&feature=related
Okay, Cinie. Point well taken.
Thanks you,
Hi Deb, I spent 5 years at ‘the’ most liberal arts college in the U.S. So, naturally, I am very familiar with bell as well as a number of other writers. What is it about “Sisters of the Yam” that you’d like me to revisit?
My recent reading of Sowell is the first time I’ve read his work and as I mentioned to my husband this morning, “He really rocks my foundation.” Meaning, not that what he has to say makes me exceedingly happy, but that in all of my ‘liberal’ education, I was never exposed to views such as his, replete with a gazillion notes of primary source information that substantiates his facts. I’m a fact wonk (analytical type). But once I am confident in those facts, I can be very passionate about my what I’ve discovered. I find many liberals are often passionate about rhetoric, but aren’t terribly interested in facts. I’m not saying that Cinie or anyone else here is ignorant of facts, but rather there are other points of view that are measured, well thought-out that may also be considered. Especially if they might point to a real dialogue that may end a persistent and unsettled misery in this country about race relations for which there seems to be no joint solution.
What often happens in response to an invitation to consider something else we, instead, pile on more of our pet arguments, ‘proof’ and a renewed moral indignation that is keeping us where we are — stasis. I’m wondering just how much longer we can keep this up.
Thanks!
Black rednecks and white liberals?
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2005/05/05/black_rednecks_and_white_liberals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
Hmm. Well, just saying, I guess. So much hasn’t worked whatever we’re experiencing now is retrograde, too.
Cheers,
Woodhull, as you read Sowell, can you squeeze in some bell hooks? “Sisters of the Yam,” to be specific.
Cinie, you wrote: “As for Sowell, his research may be spot on, but his conservative/libertarian politics turn me off, especially as they relate to black people.”
I admit to the same reaction when I first knew about his ties to the Hoover Institute. But I’ve given him a another chance and his research of historical fact, despite his so-called conservatism, is second to none (undisputed). Perhaps it’s because of my own personal ‘project’ to seek facts rather than take the words of contemporary, so-called ‘experts’ that I am learning to suspend my often emotional judgment and instead grok the facts for myself in piecing together a political perspective.
This isn’t for this thread, but I’d like to know sometime how his views of black people turn you off.
Thanks!
First of all, we can talk about anything you like here, unless it’s someting you want to keep personal, then, just let me know and I’ll email you.
Second, in answer to your question about Sowell, I’m reminded of what MLK had to say about “extreme rightists.” From his Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution speech in March of 1968:
The rightists are always bootstrap kinda guys.
http://www.yonip.com/main/peace/revolution.html
Sister Cinie…LET THE CHURCH SAY “AMEN!!!”
Martin was a critical thinker, one who could definitely see the “forest.” If we’d all just stop and THINK – we’d see – AND OWN – some shit for a change (I hate that word for obvious reasons, but what the hell).
“Which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.”
James von Bruun’s family migrated here from Germany to St. Louis, MO where he was born in 1920 and they lived well – after having been “undergirded” with that same economic floor to which Dr. King refers.
After having been thusly “privileged” by the White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy of the day, I guess he’s feeling a tad hoodwinked and bamboozled by them now – had to lash out. Cinie, how do I do a screen shot? Every damn thing I’ve found on this man has either been removed or altered? In the interest of “national security??”
{shaking my damn head}
Got a little off-track there.
Thank you for this Cinie, I’ll be linking to it in my next post. I’ve been pondering about us Black folks a lot lately and this fits right in.
Don’t know how to do screenshots, Deb. Sorry. Maybe a helpful web maven will stop by and share knowledge.
As for MLK vs right wing talking points, I was thinking that Obie represents the danger of tokenism. So many people see the few blacks with boots out front, that they’re easily convinced that the millions of unshod blacks back home are shoeless by choice. The left promotes tokenism, the right exploits it. Sadly, the left is now promoting and exploiting.
No doubt he represents tokenism! And what’s even more insidious about that tokenism is that THEY’VE created what the ACCEPTABLE (read: “We might let you do some shit!”), “booted” Black man/woman is or should be (and some of us go along with that shit! – Obie on Father’s Day for example).
Not only does it fuck with the self-esteem of those with little-to-none to begin with, it’s soul-murdering for the Black community. IMHO, that’s how we ended up with so many Black folks voting for his ass. Post-Traumatic Slavery Disorder is a lot like “Battered Woman Syndrome” – we just keep going back for more, even if it kills us. *deep sigh*
O/T: Rev. Wright still fodder for the grist mill I see.
Hi Deb!
Went over to your blog a few days ago, and wanted to leave a message – but didn’t want to sign up with Google to do so. So Hi
!
I see that there sure are things you can teach me about (and I’ll let you, lol). So I’ll be back.
As for screen-shot, on a Mac it is by pressing “apple”-shift-4. Don’t know, if that is any help to you?
Deb just google: How to make a screen shot. Lots of links.
Hey Pips! Googled and got it! They can run now, but they sure as hell can’t lie now!
Thanks!
Glad you stopped by – do come back anytime (whether you sign up with Google or not – reading’s good!) Not tryin’ to teach necessarily, just want to provoke some critical thinking. That’s why I love Cinie’s space so much – this sister works your brain!
Cinie: Have you read the two Sowell essays I’ve referred to? Sowell’s commentary does speak about what King says (in a roundabout way, not directly quoting him). Anyway, his research and analysis on this subject is far from dispassionate about the inheritance of blacks in America, but the surprising bits are the contrasts of black progress before the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and how so-called liberalism has impeded that progress in real, verifiable terms. Today, so many liberals can only point to the Civil Rights Movement as the turning point in black progress, but then everything goes blank after that. Sowell writes of real progress up to that point in time and what needs to happen now, to renew the things that work. There is endless talk, talk, talk and one failed government program after another and yet we are seeking the same failed solutions and endless, mind-numbing chatter. What I find in his writing neutralizes the wasteful emotion and politicized rhetoric and points to something that could work (and in the past, has worked) for all Americans — black, white and all colors in between. Anyway, that’s my take on Sowell.
I’ll write later about the topic that Kara and I are working on.
thanks,
Woodhull, if you go to the Black Republicans site, that’s their main talking point. I don’t buy it. Just like I don’t buy that MLK was a Republican, especially in light of the quoted comment above. Government problems are not THE problem, nor THE solution. The lack of commitment to true social integration by the powers that be, period, right, left, and in between, is the problem, imo. One need only look at the Republican party’s racial makeup and record on its commitment to minorities to put the lie to anything they say about “liberal” failure.
Also, an invitation to you, Cinie: Kara and I are attempting to discuss the current role of ‘feminists’ (or the absence of them) in current terms over at LR. Would you like to join us? I don’t want to hijack this thread, but don’t see you over there often enough to make a shout out. I’d especially like your input.
Is this an upcoming thread, Woodhull, I haven’t seen anything along those lines over there lately. And, though I can’t speak to
“feminism” from the standpoint of organized protest, I’d be willing to offer my 2 cents on the state of womanhood as I see it.
Do I have your permission to expand on this, here (under this thread)? Otherwise I would be glad to send you an email that would explain it. It’s not an upcoming thread — yet. As you may know, LR has had discussions in the past month or so about the deafening silence of blowback by women in liberal circles, most notably the Democratic party itself, in response to sexism and misogyny practiced within the party and how hypocritical that is, given their stated values. It’s more complex than this, but don’t want to change the course of your post. Let me know.
Thanks,
Cinie, you wrote: “As far as I know, none campaigned as non-Christian, though.”
Actually, none campaigned. (.) In the first couple of decades following Washington’s installment to the presidency, it was considered unseemly to ’seek’ public office through self-promotion. John Adams never even left his remote home, but rec’d the news of his ‘win’ by messenger after the electoral votes were counted. Washington was begged to become president by both a majority of the congress and overwhelming public sentiment because of his role as defacto commander-in-chief during the Revolution. He was also the first to invoke God’s name at the end of his oath to public office (on his own, apparently). Thus began the tradition, but there’s no telling which god he had in mind.
I’m reading a really good book right now that is a series of long essays by Thomas Sowell: “Black Rednecks and White Liberals”. Aside from the fascinating and well-researched title essay, in another one, (I think it’s called) “The Real History of the Civil War”, Sowell delves into the human history of slavery. I won’t recount it all here, but I think it is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the course of slavery from Aristotle forward and the role of religion (or absence of it) in that history. I think it is very important to know the facts of something before making a contemporary conclusion even if it flies in the face of everything I thought I knew or believed. And having only studied history for fun in the past decade or so, I realized that when I speak from an uninformed position, I am only adding to the myth and misinformation. Besides, I’m finding that the facts of history are so much more fascinating and complex than any theory I could make up about it.
Woodhull, perhaps campaigned was the wrong word, I admit I’m not up on early American presidential politics. My only point was that as far as I know, nobody has run for president as a non-Christian. I’m not even sure how relevant people in the early days of our history, especially the ones who could vote, would have found religious affiliation.
As for Sowell, his research may be spot on, but his conservative/libertarian politics turn me off, especially as they relate to black people.
I love reading posts that are just so
balanced
And not one sided
Amen to balanced.
Yep,the world needs to see how evil the Christians are.
.
[...] Perhaps for us regular folks the war is about religion – maybe that’s how they get us to care so deeply about the Middle East. And if that’s true, then is it really in their interest for us to resolve the religion problem? [...]
Hi, all, this is off the subject, but did you hear David Letterman say the Alaska Republican governor sports a “slutty flight attendant look.” ?
I mean, this is not only insulting to Sarah Palin but also to all flight attendants!
There are just so many ways I want to say “amen” to this that I can’t even begin to speak them. However, thanks for this from one of those non-theistic religious practitioners. I’m a vajrayana Buddhist and I don’t even think I could get elected to dogcatcher with that on my CV.
E Louise? Is that you? Just wondering if it was you, who commented so brilliantly, critically and compassionately about my friend, Mr. Sheptock, the homeless advocate over at NPR?
I am weary of the preach-to-no-end-ident dragging religion into government, into international relations , and into laws and policies .
It is one of the most glaring of his hypocrisies , to infuse more religion into a government that was intended , no matter what the spiritual bent of its founders ,, to BE FREE OF RELIGION
As for the ‘dragging religion into international relations’, today for the first time since the lovefest began, I heard criticism of Obama on the Danish National Broadcast (gasp!) from a member of the Parliament.
OK, he is from the far right party, which is vehemently anti-Islam, but he sounded quite pissed over Obama’s speech in Cairo. So with the distinct move to the right at this Sunday’s election to the EU Parliament, I wonder if the tone will change overall?
all this damned back and forth on religions is simply stupid if you ask me, and guess who started it, the pres, who has never run anything but his big mouth.
He was off task and so are we.
It is ironic that religion – supposedly the bedrock of a moral society – is so often used as a license to commit immoral acts.
The argument for orthodox religion is to control the masses you know Morality, Dictating Morals – Which many high profile members of many denominations break, and are paraded on TV for their penance or retribution. So without religion we all would be breaking all the commandments for example, and we would all be criminals..thou shalt not. Where are the Thou Shall? If I personally came across a burning bush, I would be tempted to start roasting wienies
That’s the bill of goods were sold if there wasn’t religion there would be masses of immoral people – peopling the earth. Ask an atheist you might get this answer about morality. “there is value in leading a moral life” So do we need organized religion? I am supposed to believe we can’t teach our children right from wrong with out it? By the way children learn right from wrong by the time they are 6 years old. One of my older sisters is a counselor and imparted that knowledge to me, she specialized in adolescence. If a child doesn’t know right from wrong by this developmental stage, you might want to have them checked out. Well she was a counselor, she is retired now after battling breast cancer, and she is living with the after affects of the treatment.
I grew up with the venal and mortal sins, who took the time to parse our sinning into categories in the first place?
I mean for example, you can kiss, you can give someone a buss but don’t do it open mouthed….Too funny.
Let me add to the above, that in no way do I mean to mock religions.
As an unchristianable person I neither respect nor disrespect religions, but I respect my fellow human beings’ choise to believe in a God, any God – as long as they don’t get in my face about it.
Personally I keep my own nonbelief to myself!
During the so-called Cartoon Controversy I experienced up close how totally out of control the anger over “disrespect of my religious belief” could get, and maybe if those higher up in the Islamic priesthoods, who instigated the demonstrations and rebellions that followed, hadn’t been lacking a sense of humour, this would never have gotten so totally out of hand.
That’s actually what I miss in all the religions I know of: the capacity of occasional self mockery, a sense of humour, a little laughter now and then. I do not want to laugh at religions, but wish I could laugh with them once in a while.
Does humour even exist in religion?
Well, we Jews tend to laugh at ourselves all the time. I don’t know if that’s religion or culture, however.
This “My God’s bigger, better, stronger than your God”, gets really funny/silly when the ‘Gods’ is in essence one and the same. The result of such fights is obvious in the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, (one of?) the most holy of places for Christians.
It is an impressive church to visit – but my, oh my what a jumble of chapels in all shapes and sizes, several even build one on top of the other. And the ornamentation is chaotic!
All this due to jealousy and rivalry between competitive Christian religious movements.
(As not to offend anyone I will refrain from relating how I imagine these [all male] fights have been fought, but … lol!)
Fab post, Cinie! I have saved it, BB!
Hi Cinie,”Room for interpretation” is rather a broad definition of religion, no? I have a gay sister-in-law on the West Bank with Code Pink(YUK)….when she gets back I’ll have a better understanding as to why they are all there. But then, I’m annoyed. What does this have to do with changing the world in 2012. Which is, PUMAs, what I think we should be thinking about.
Huh?
I’m totally with you Cinie, as long as that religions doesn’t have at its base the subjugation of women. Although the patriarchy tries to use Christianity to do that, there is actually quite a bit of room for interpretation if you get over the women are evil because of Eve thing and focus on the teachings of Christ. Any Christian is really supposed to focus on the NEW Testament. It was always strange to me that when we switched from Catholicism to Fundamentalist/Pentacostal the preponderance of teachings were from the Old Testament.
Anyways, from what I’ve hear, there is no room for interpretation about women’s roles in the Koran.
According to the sources I researched, the religious affiliation of the Founding Fathers is debatable. Some say 6 to 10 of the presidents were actually “Deists,” if not atheists, including Lincoln, but by most accounts, the overwhelming majority still attended Christian churches fairly regularly. As far as I know, none campaigned as non-Christian, though. According to Wikipedia, Jeffeerson wrote this in a personal letter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations
Cinie – your quote is in line with the other things I’ve read about Jefferson. He agreed with the moral precepts that Jesus taught, but didn’t like much else about the Bible. In fact, he created his own.
In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson stated that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the “Christian System” in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 1798–99. He proposed beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the ethics of the Jews, and concluding with the “principles of a pure deism” taught by Jesus, “omitting the question of his deity.” Jefferson explained that he really doesn’t have the time, and urged the task on Priestley as the person best equipped to accomplish the task.[3]
Jefferson accomplished a more limited goal in 1804 with “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth,” the predecessor to Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.[4] He described it in a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813:
Jefferson frequently expressed discontent with this earlier version, however. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth represents the fulfillment of his desire to produce a more carefully assembled edition.
Fascinating man, Mr. Jefferson.
PSV – Jefferson was a Deist, as were many of the Founding Fathers. In fact, he had a Koran, upon which our first Muslim Congresscritter, Keith Ellison, swore his Congressional oath.
What is a Congresscritter?
You have two Congresscritters in the Senate and one in the House.
I still don’t get it – what’s a Congresscritter?
Congressperson, I believe.
Yup – sorry, lightpondblogger, instead of saying “Congressperson” I say “Congresscritter.” Let’s just say that I don’t respect the current crop all that much, although I know there are some exceptions to that rule.
i believe native amerians have addressed this issue and would only ask their the side is the one told
I could be wrong about this, but it seems that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. Didn’t he believe in “Nature’s god,” as he wrote in the Declaration of Independence? Or something…
-MS
I just hate it when people hide their bullshit behind religion and/or love. “I love you, so I’m going to beat you for your own good.” Or, here’s a Bible, gimme your land.” Or, we’re the good guys, those other guys, with that other book and a gun, are the bad ones.”
In every instance of colonization I can think of, it seems to lightpondblogger
Deb – I myself thought of the same quote; looked it up, and found you’d beat me to it.
That about sums it up, huh?
Hey Cin, a little weary today, but when I read the post I thought of this quote and just had to comment! You do that to a girl with all the thoughts you stir up!
“When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the missionaries had the Bible. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened our eyes, they had the land and we had the Bible.”—Jomo Kenyatta