Recently I have delved into the world of american politics. It never interested me much before because I live in europe and I just assumed that just like here in sweden, politics is strictly secular. I was a bit naive.

Now I have learned that to be even electable in america you have to profess belief in a god. That is disturbing enough in and of itself. Who's darn buisness is it what you personally believe? It's the political ideology that matters! Or so I thought.

On a sidenote perhaps we should care more here in europe about our leaders religious beliefs. Naturally we don't want religious wackos running our countries, I just figured that most believers were subscribers of democratic values aswell. And I still optimistically think they are. I look at Libya, Egypt and Syria and see even muslims are starting to see the light and wanting to adopt democratic values.

But my optimism may be unfounded. Take the issue of evolution vs creationism. Again I was naive when I first heard about it in the news. And I was even a mormon at the time, but it was the consensus in my very mormon family at the time that these creationist people where simply nuts.

Perhaps I should explain the reasoning why even the creationists in my family (we were and still are divided over the issue) didn't think that creationism should be thaught in science class as it may seem puzzling to you americans. Or perhaps many religious americans feel the same way. I don't know.

Anyway, here goes the argument: Wether or not one believes in evolution is a separate issue from the fact that it is THE scientific theory of our day. And one should know about the the important current scientific theories wether one believes in them or not. Ofcourse being mormon at the time we "knew the truth" (Since we were divided over the issue we even "knew" contradictory truths!) but we had firm belief that teaching religion as science in public school is against democratic values.

It's a belief I still have. And that's what's troubling me. Teaching religion as science is in my mind a violation of the separation of church and state. I assumed that creationism in america was just like here in sweden, a small fringe group of religious nuts that didn't understand that as far as science go there is no debate. Afterall most mainstream christians here do accept evolution.

I didn't understand that in america much of mainstream christianity does not accept evolution. In their mind the issue isn't settled scientifically. To go about this they have dressed up creationism into the theory of intelligent design. In my opinion an utterly dishonest attempt to present religious belief as science. It's not like they want to promote any kind of theism in general, no they want to promote evangelical christianity in particular.

Here's my rant about ID: It's completely unscientific to assume that just because a god/gods created us therefore christian fundamentalism is right. That is making a thousand additional assumptions that isn't warranted from the evidence. If ID (intelligent design) is right you could aswell be a jew, a hindu, a muslim or have a million other concepts of a god or pantheon of gods. it doesn't prove christianity more true than it proves norse paganism true! And given the numerous horrible facts of nature, parasites, predators e.t.c. it doesn't even prove the god/gods good and worthy of worship. All it does prove is that an unknowable force created life in an unknowable way. That's not science, it's a celebration of ignorance.

But far more scarier, ID is not only an attack on science, it's an attack of secularism, the notion that religion and politics should as far as possible be separate. I can live with religious nuts thinking differerently than me, but I don't want to live in a world where they push their agenda through political means. I don't want religious propaganda pushed in public schools.

Furthermore I don't understand these people, I figured christian values where honesty, kindness, charity e.t.c. but according to these nuts the number one value is pushing for conformity even if you have to lie and decieve to do it. The end justifies the means. They are "lying for the lord" just as much as mormons do.

Now they even infiltrate universities. Creationist students go to great lenghts studying biology so that they can get credentials for discrediting evolution. ofcourse they can't refute it to a professional biologist, but their status as legitimate biologists will impress the public.

That would not be so bad if it were done with honesty and integrity. A real desire to find out if evolution is true or false. But it's not. It's for the ultimate agenda to push evangelical christianity in public schools. Many of them may not believe that this is what they are doing, but I suspect this is just the beginning. They will if given the chance find more scientific issues to subvert into christian dogma. All in the name of science so that they can pretend that it's not blurring the line between the religious and the secular.

Another blatant issue is gay rights. Should gays have a right to marry? Again it's the evangelical christians that oppose it. And again they do so dishonestly and as hypocrits. Hypocrits because if you believe in the separation of church and state you cannot argue that it should be forbidden because the bible says so, that is inconsistent. Dishonestly because many have sensed rightly that the religious card is hypocrisy, so they fabricate the lie that this implies that churches must perform such marriges which would violate religious liberty. They fabricate the lie that marrige has always been between "one man and one woman", they perpetuate the myth that christianity defined marrige in the first place. They suggest that, horror of horrors, gay marrige will convince more straight men to "choose" to become gay. In essence they want to push religious bigotry into politics. And if "lying for the lord" is necessary so be it.

Good news. There's healthy debate going on in your country, and it seems so far that most christians do believe in free speech. That's reassuring. But religion can be a slippery slope. Historically we have seldom seen a religion becoming dominant without eventually turning into theocracy. Let's hope that the right wing crazy version of christianity will never become dominant in america.

Perhaps it's because I live in a country that truly has been a theocracy, and we are through our history informed of the evils of that, that I don't like the trend in america where the religious right get's more and more power. Despite being outnumbered by more mainstream and sane versions of christianity.

I come to think about swedish history. In the middle ages the christian church was relatively benign, if you commited some minor sin you were told to recite some prayers or do some other voodoo and that was that. The catholic church was actually surprisingly soft on sexual sins for example. Gradually as the state became stronger and more theocratic more and more "sins" were transformed into crimes, and the punishment for these crimes gradually increased in barbarity and cruelty until in the 1600s it reflected pretty well the barbarity and cruelty of the old testament. It is also not a coincidence that that was the century when sweden participated in it's one and only religious war.

This didn't happen overnight, it took hundreds of years, but you can clearly see the progression from a church that is relatively benign when it's not strongly attached to the state (in this case because the state itself wasn't that strongly established), to a rule of terror when you get full-blown theocracy. and it was done step by step through legislation, a new law here, a new law there a couple of years later and so on. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

And the history of mormonism confirms the evils of theocracy too. As soon as they were in majority and isolated from more progressive influences the mormons were suddenly under Brigham Youngs reign of terror. (Proof that theocracy doesn't always need hundreds of years to be established). People mysteriously vanished and were killed for the most ridiculous offenses, all because of religious lunacy. These things can and often do happen when religion gets political power. Or if we want modern day examples, just look at the muslim world.

I'm an optimist, I don't seriously think america is heading that way. I hope to god it's not (pun intended). But you never know in this world. Perhaps our march towards ever more enlightened views are over. It has happened before, many times throughout history although unlike them we have the advantage of the internet, which is a serious threat to all kinds of oppression.

"That's not science, it's a celebration of ignorance."

Yup we celebrate a lot of ignorance around here...

UNFORTUNATELY...if you dont believe in the Christian God...you are pretty much screwed in politics here in the US! religious freedom here means the religious right gets to decide what is taught in schools and whether or not you are a good person. if you dont believe their way...you are a POS!! let me know if you need a translation for the last! Tak tak!!

Those people who benefit the most from a dog eat dog economy are trying to cloak their greed with a display of fake piety. No, I don't think it will work this time. I remember one of the first debates George W. Bush had, and one of the questions was "What person do you most admire?" His answer was "Jesus". He didn't follow up with why he admired Jesus.

Wow, where to start.. I so agree with you about all of this.. The gay thing.. I've decided to tell my conservative Christian friends that I'm going to "coose" to be gay only on certain days of the week and maybe holiday.. If it is a choice, I can choose to be gay every tuesday and every other thursday.

As far as some of the other stuff you mention, I'm going to throw out the theory that we are the result of a sixth grade science experiment in a petrie (sp) dish somewhere in a galaxy.

Short answer, yes. And it goes back a few decades -- this is not a new thing. It's just become so mainstream that it's noticeable all the way across the pond in Europe!

I ran across the theocracy watch website a few years ago and bookmarked it, always intending to come back later and do some reading. It basically lays out the game plan, which is to make incremental changes to legislation on local, state, and then the national levels, until everyone is conforming to the One True Theocracy According to the Moral Majority (which is neither, IMO).

Happy Reading!
http://www.theocracywatch.org/

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right)
The Alienation of Southern Democrats

Into the 1960 election, Catholics and evangelicals worked against each other, as evangelicals mobilized their forces to defeat Catholics Al Smith in 1928 and John F. Kennedy in 1960. By the 1980s, however, Catholic bishops and evangelicals worked together on issues such as abortion.

The alienation of Southern Democrats from the Democratic Party contributed to the rise of the Right, as the counterculture of the 1960s provoked fear of social disintegration. In addition, as the Democratic Party became identified with a pro-choice position on abortion and with nontraditional societal values, social conservatives joined the Republican Party in increasing numbers.

Ability to organize

The contemporary Christian right became increasingly vocal and organized in reaction to a series of United States Supreme Court decisions (notably Bob Jones University v. Simon and Bob Jones University v. United States) and also engaged in battles over pornography, obscenity, abortion, state sanctioned prayer in public schools, textbook contents (concerning evolution vs. creationism), homosexuality, and sexual education.

Grassroots activism

Much of the Christian right's power within the American political system is attributed to their extraordinary turnout rate at the polls. The voters that coexist in the Christian Right are also highly motivated and driven to get out a viewpoint on issues they care about. As well as high voter turnout, they can be counted on to attend political events, knock on doors and distribute literature. Members of the Christian Right are willing to do the electoral work needed to see their candidate elected. Because of their high level of devotion, the Christian right does not need to monetarily compensate these people for their work.

Political leaders and institutions

Led by Robert Grant's advocacy group Christian Voice, Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, Ed McAteer's Religious Roundtable Council, James Dobson's Focus on the Family, and Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, the new Religious Right combined conservative politics with evangelical and fundamentalist teachings. The birth of the New Christian right, however, is usually traced to a 1979 meeting where televangelist Jerry Falwell was urged to create a "Moral Majority" organization.

(Follow Wiki link above for more thorough treatment as well as cited timeline.)

ETA: Anyone with their head still stuck firmly in the sand who says Mittens' campaign is innocent and he really just wants to be President, is kidding themselves or deeply ignorant of what's going on behind the scenes. Just as when you try to talk to a TBM about the truth you've researched, some people really shut down when you try to share citations and facts with regard to how a certain segment of this company has been trying -- and largely, succeeding -- to gain political power in this country so as to completely cancel out the First Amendment to our Constitution, which is to say that the US Government cannot establish a State religion. The Moral Majority™ thinks it can and should and they will not rest until all traces of secularism are completely erased from American culture. If this doesn't scare the crap out of my fellow Americans, then they should just get back to watching America's Got Talent videos on YouTube.

To the OP: Please let me know if you've got a room to rent in your house in Sweden. I'll come be your nanny or housekeeper or something. ;>)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2012 01:56PM by dogzilla.

I thought it was classic how in the Republican primary this past year, South Carolina, who was so opposed to John F Kennedy because of his Catholic Faith, had no problem turning around and voting for 3 time cheating Catholic Newt Gingrich, simply because he was a better choice than voting for a "Mormon". I am so glad that I don't live there any more!!!

I read the links. Scary stuff indeed, it's even worse than I thought.

Unfortuntely I don't have a house, just a tiny room in an apartment, but you can be my housekeeper anyway. ;-)

Awesome. I have a really good friend in Gislaved. How far is that from you?

Gislaved sounds like a southern or western swedish name so I'd guess about 300-400 km. Perhaps longer. Is it close to gothenburg?

Yes, it's in Jönköping county, about 130 kilometers SE of Gothenburg. (80 miles)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2012 01:53PM by dogzilla.

In researching my response above, I came across some other shocking reading that I thought I'd share. This is the part where I think it's very difficult to tease apart religion from politics -- for the purpose of adhering to this Board's policies of no political discussions. Modern feminism teaches that the personal is political. With the religious right, the religious is personal is political. It's all one and the same to them. Mittens is capitalizing on this.

Anyway, some links for anyone who's interested in digging further:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/12/0081322 - Through a Glass Darkly: How the Christian right is reimagining US History

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/chr_rght.htm - Defining the Christian Right

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/religiousliberty/tp/Religious-Right-History-Timeline.htm - Another timeline with links to more information

In which case, I want my concubines.

Who doesn't? I would like a housewife.

If not 'in name' in application.

at the End of the Road, that's what matters.

- anti privacy rights

- anti birth control

- anti abortion

-(in effect) anti Freedom of press/expression (pro-censorship)

The featured speaker at the ex-Mo conference in 2010 was Jeff Sharlet, author of "The Family." You need to read "The Family."

Unfortunatly, several groups in the States are pushing for a theocracy: the Mormons (obviously), the stereotypical Southern Republican, some of the Muslim extremeists, and the New Apostolic Reformation (From what little I know, the NAR scares me.)

The only thing that might prevent it is that all the self righteous bigots could never agree on who's version of self righteous bigotry is the One True Bigotry that everyone must be compelled to follow.

I actually saw a youtube clip of a former born-again christian explaining the different kinds of creationists. It was enlightening. Did you know that there are a few christians out there that still believe the earth is the center of the universe? I stand all amazed...

If a politician is not religious they will become religious to get elected. "Oh yeah. I'm Lutheran" or whatever. God is mentioned in our constitutions as an important foundational element but there is not just one religion agreed upon. America is a pretty good place, in my opinion.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2012 11:23AM by suckafoo.

I wish we would think like most Europeans and relegate religous affiliation and thinking to churches and ban it from the public square. But that is not where we are at and for a while religous people are going to have to be "managed". We will need to push back on their attempts to invade privacy and to regulate scientific thinking and what is taught to children in public schools. We're just going to have to engage these people for a few more decades. And then things will change. Jesus won't be here, the Mormons will have lost 10s of thousands of members to the internet and most people will simply be "spiritual" rather than "religous".

Europe is simple ahead of us, by about 50 years.

We have many young souls here.

Question for the Eurpean folks. Is it hard for Americans to assimilate into the European population. I've wanted to move to Europe for quite some time to get away from the theocratic nightmare that is America, but I am worried that the European countries have lost all respect for Americans, and rightfully so. What do you think? Which countries in Europe would you suggest are the most Atheist and progressive at the same time willing to absorb a disaffected American?

While the election process is saturated with supernatural belief the government is forbidden from incorporating religious ideals into law. The US also has a working justice system that purges religious ideals that wiggle their way in.

But, do you feel that this will always be the case? or, Do you suppose that the future of the US might include Supreme court representatives that are more caring and sympathetic to religious ideals? I am worried that the amount of stupidity in the US and our lack of education is going to poisen the justice system with emtionlly-centered arguments that appease the populace rather thant sensical and logic conclusions that move society forward.

I just spent a few minutes on Wikipedia looking up the religions of each of the current Supreme Court justices. I found the most interesting tidbit I might have encountered this week.

Six of the nine SC justices are Catholic. The other three are Jewish. What other body of government is comprised of 2/3 Catholics and 1/3 Jews? No protestants, no evangelicals, no fundamentalists. Weird, innit?

I think that's really interesting. While that's not necessarily good news for the pro-choice people, I think that's very good news for those of us who are anti-Evangelical/Fundie. Thank Maude we don't have a Santorum on the Supreme Court. Because SC terms are for life, it would take a long time before enough new justices were appointed to load the SC down with a bunch of Fundies. I don't mind Catholics and Jews. While their doctrine might be as wonky as any other, at least Catholicism and Judaism don't seem to be terribly focused on obedience and CONTROL.

When was the last time the SC ruled that something was ok because it was in line with their religious beliefs?

Ever heard of Abdirizak Waberi (M)? He likes sharia laws. A lot. He's in the Swedish parliament since 2010. Why did (M) give him such a fine place on the candidate list (5th)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNDeeoUNvAk

Ahh, I see what you are saying on that one. So, maybe crap like this happens all around the world!

Recently, I've become more and more fascinated with how people from other countries - particularly in Europe - view America. Thanks for this post.

You're absolutely correct. One of the biggest factors is that the Christian Right has successfully equated "Christian values" with "American values". Americans are supposed to be industrious and hard-working, with strong family bonds and a sense of duty. The Christian Right claims that these values come from a good Christian upbringing, and result is the most American of Americanisms: capitalism. On the flip side, socialism and communism, the most anti-American of ideas, are portrayed as the fruits of lazy good-for-nothings who don't want to work for what they get, but just want everything handed to them. Damn liberal hippies, the lot of them, most of whom don't believe in the Christian god. Therefore, Christian = Capitalist = American, while non-religious = Communist = un-American.

It's a PR campaign that has been used for hundreds of years, essentially since the nation's founding. Part of the reason why Joe Smith was more successful than so many of the other religions started in that time period was his emphasis on America as Christ's personal favorite place - the "chosen land".

Christianity plays right into American nationalism - it was founded by "good Christians" who were escaping persecution, and became such a powerful nation because the Christian god blesses it. The Christian white man persevered over the "lazy, heathen, savage" Indian (according to the popular mythic history of the Native American people; most Americans never learn much about the reality of it) because they were on God's side.

Because the majority of U.S. citizens consider themselves Christian believers, it's easy - and, unfortunately, necessary - for this attitude to cross party lines. A liberal candidate has no hope of winning the independent voters without professing her Christian beliefs, because being non-religious is equated with being non-American, and the majority of the people she's courting will be Christians.

Secularism is portrayed as an attempt to rid Christians of their rights to be Christians. "You can't teach my kids science in public schools if it contradicts my personal beliefs - that's religious persecution!" "You can't take 'under God' out of the Pledge of Allegiance - that's religious persecution against everyone who believes in God!" In actuality, religion and secularism aren't necessarily opposing forces. They can co-exist - it is possible to have a largely religious population with a secular government/society. But secularism is seen not as an absence of religion, but as an anti-religion. Freedom "of" religion does not equal freedom "from" religion.

The underlying factor is this: because American prosperity has, for so long, been equated with its dominantly Christian population, a rise in secularism has inversely been equated with American downfall.

Fortunately, there is a slow change occurring in America. The population as a whole is loosening its ties with religion, and more and more people are identifying themselves as non-religious or unaffiliated with any particular religion.

Unfortunately, the more threatened the Christian right feels the louder and more obnoxiously it will try to defend itself.

I do think, optimistically, that secularism will eventually win out, at least in government. But it will be a long and interesting battle.

Secularism won already and it didn't even have to fight the Christian right because Christians were on board with Secularism. In the last few years there has been a vocal and powerful group of extremest who would like to fight again but they will not win. Every few generations the fight comes back up and is squashed by the founding documents of the US and it's diverse non-homogeneous electorate.

Legally, yes. We are a secular nation. Our Constitution guarantees this.

But in practice, it is very much still a battle within American society. What the OP (by my interpretation of his post) and I were saying was about the prevalence of Christian ideals in modern politics, even though a candidates religious affiliation shouldn't be a factor.

The fact that the "fight comes back up" every few generations, as you say, is proof positive that it hasn't ever been completely won. There is still enough of a force out there that religion takes up a huge chunk of political discussion. Look at the current debate about women's health issues vs. a church's right to deny its employees contraception. Look at marriage equality, whose opponents are fueled almost entirely by religious convictions.

To say that secularism "won" because we technically live in a democratic republic rather than theocracy is correct, but to ignore the impact that religion still has on American politics is foolish.

I am not denying the pious rhetoric and the militant groups on both sides. I am saying that until the constitution is amended to remove the first and fourteenth amendments, religious ideology will not win. It keeps on coming up because in the US each person can speak their mind about the government and how it should be run. Just because they are vocal about their religious beliefs doesn't mean they will win.

You mention the contraception issue and marriage equality, how are these different than legal racism and abortion? Secularism won those battles and it will win the current ones. Have hope.

>>>There's healthy debate going on in your country, and it seems so far that most christians do believe in free speech. That's reassuring. But religion can be a slippery slope. Historically we have seldom seen a religion becoming dominant without eventually turning into theocracy. Let's hope that the right wing crazy version of christianity will never become dominant in america.

I am not going to belabor this point too much but I will say that as an outsider, you probably didn't notice what a few of us old-timers noticed, which was that in the run-up to his presidency, Ronald Reagan knew that if he wanted to win the White House he had to court the Fundamentalists and Evangelists (read: reactionary-but-increasingly-independent-voting-block of the 1970s) who were becoming increasingly disenchanted with the traditional party they usually allied themselves with (Democrats) because that party was turning increasingly toward certain fringe groups in American society (read: Blacks, Hispanics, Gays).

That is not to say that all Evangelies and Fundies were or are racists/bigots, because probably only half of them are.

Ever since the first Reagan presidency, the RNC has been more and more beholden to the voting base represented by the Evangelies/Fundies. Some in the party never did like that, but for thirty years they have been ignored. Only recently has that voice begun to reassert itself. The fact remains that the majority block in the RNC is composed of those who pander to the Christian Über-Right and their strident (not to say shrill) demands.

You are very much mistaken that these people believe in free speech, or at least "free" in the way that many who grew up in the 50s, 60s, and 70s believed defined Free Speech. The Christian Right, through their infiltration into politics (and this includes Mormons on both sides of the aisle) are the first to restrict speech as it moves into realms that criticize them and their actions. Several of the Bush Administration's acts (and make no mistake here: all three Bush Administrations were elected AND supported by a unanimous Christian Right) post-9/11 were specifically designed to monitor, curb, or stifle outright any speech, writing, or actions that smacked of criticism or opposition: the development of the so-called Department of Homeland Security; the misnamed Patriot Act; the suspension of Habeas Corpus; ... the list goes on and on, as did the petty persecution of critics and the petty recriminations and condemnations of common fools goaded by the fearmongers running their party. Their goal was, is, and always will be to stifle dissent and silence criticism.

All pretense aside, the Christian movement for 2,000 years has been motivated by one sentiment only: My Way or death. Only with the advent of secular governments in the last 236 years has that sentiment been forced to modify itself into something less severe. The best the Christian Right can impose at this moment in time is My Way or the highway, but you had better believe they see it as a fight to the death.

The threat of total governmental domination by the Christian Right (and Mormons -- whether "true Christians" or not -- fall well within the camp) is the most dangerous threat to the freedoms enjoyed by the American People since the inception of this country, bar none. They come before us, sanctimoniously wrapped in the American Flag, confessing their Patriotism, swearing their Sincerity, bleating their platitudes about Manifest Destiny, and winning their elections. And then, like a deadly parasite, they turn on their host and try to kill it.