A Modern Secular Religion

"Faith based initiatives" blur the lines between church and state and leave so much room for abuse that I suspect we'll soon have some specific examples we can point to as evidence of this danger. And Scrat, the framing of the question as "discrimination" is a huge stretch. It really should come down to a choice. Does a group or school want to be a religious organization or a non-religious organization? If it's a religious organization, the burden should be on the followers of the religious faith being represented in the form of voluntary charitable giving. If the religious group has enough supporters then they have something to offer a student or the underprivileged. If they don't, they can't. If the charity is not affiliated with a religious organization, it has no specific constituency from which it can solicit funds. Because the non religious organization can live by the very good rule of non-discrimination in their hiring practices, they are free to apply for federal funds. There's no discrimination here. It's fairly applied to all religions.

Federal funding for religious schools is an attack on the public school system and is discriminatory in and of itself. It's an attempt to side step the church/state separation issue in public schools, in which religious teaching of any kind is clearly a violation of the Constitution and re-couches it as "it's not fair to discriminate against charities because of their religious affiliation." It would only be discrimination if it was limited to only one or a few religions but not all. The blurring of boundaries is a danger that will back fire, as Setanta has so clearly outlined.

There is a right wing agenda which is being pushed on all fronts by a few religious zealots to violate the civil rights of the citizens of this country. They see it as their religious obligation to enlighten the heathen. They are at present succeeding and it may take some really obvious abuses and tragedy for the sleeping segment of our voters to recognize the danger. Until then, the knot around the hands of those who aim to preserve our democratic government is getting tighter and tighter. I only hope my faith in the intelligence and good conscience of the American people is not misplaced. When the danger is revealed more clearly for the average, busy, working American to see, hopefully these entitled, religious zealots will be ousted and we can return to the stability and freedom that was the dream of the framers of the Constitution.

All in the theory that the churches don't need accountabilty (!) for how the funds are spent, are less bureaucratic, won't waste money, and a myriad of other fantasies.

I'm beginning to believe that no institution -- not a single one -- should outweigh the individual in our secular, egalitarian society which has become so corrupted by "special" groups who pour money into politicians' pockets to maintain their specialness.... No tax breaks, no special treatment, no inclusion as an unofficial part of the government, no exclusion from accountability. Nor should the citizen be expected to answer to a "higher power" than himself and his elected officials. What he/she does in his/her private life - whatever "higher power" he or she feels beholden to -- that's a private matter. It should never have political weight. The American Revolution wasn't fought by people who went out to fight "An American Revolution," but by people who were defending themselves, their property rights, their independence and freedom from "higher powers." It was only later that various religious sects began to lay claim to the outcome -- and continue to do so. Shame on them, not on those who continue to stand up for freedom, individuality and self-determination.

In fact, i have not attacked the people, but rather their demagogues. If i use their own tactics against them (i'm not going to bother to debate that point with you--if you want to stipulate it, i'll accede, but only for the sake of furthering the debate at hand, and avoiding obfuscation of the central theme by an unnecessary sidetrack dispute), the cases are not analogous, because i do not have a following and do not want a following from which to mulct donations while aspiring to greater degrees of power through the manipulation of an electorate. As for those with "deep conviction but little understanding," the term can as easily be applied to those whose core political beliefs can be described as liberal as it can for those whom one would describe as conservative. The point is about leadership. Unless and until you can posit and sustain an argument that there are a set of "secular humanist" leaders of equal lust for power, greedy in the same degree, and as willing to use any low methods for control of said liberal group, you've made no point at all. Where is your modern secular equivalent to Robertson, Fallwell, et al?

You're far too intelligent for me to believe that you made any mistake in willfully misrepresenting what i wrote in this sentence of yours, above by putting "essentially unintelligent" into the text as though i had used that to describe the followers of charismatic or fundamentalist sects. That's a truly dirty trick. My original sentence in which that locution appeared was:



I used the term "essentially unintelligent" to describe persons such as Wallace and Tyler, and not the followers of Fallwell and Robertson. Shame on you for such a dirty trick, George. You've tried to paint me as heaping contempt upon the "true believer," rather than those who exploit their credulity. And you've willfully taken what i've written out of context to try to bolster your case.

Certainly i'm framing the question in terms conducive to my argument. Do you wish to claim that you do not? Do you wish to claim that you present only the truth as it is plain to see, while i'm indulging in distortions? What nonsense that is. I've as much right to frame the question in such terms as demagogues such as those i've discussed; and do so without the venality of trying to separate the faithful from their hard earned dollars to support a patrician life style, while foisting a personal agenda onto the polity.



I don't put William Wallace in the same category as those whom i have condemned here. I used Wallace and Tyler as examples of popular leaders who acted "the man on horseback" to popular movements needing a focus. They were essentially, profoundly different from the contemporary American examples i have adduced in that they made no pretension to a higher moral understanding, and did not seek to enrich themselves at the expense of their followers. Certainly they are all easy targets--they are the obvious ones, being those most dangerous to the political and social liberty of us all. As for the comparison of Fallwell and Moussolini, i very carefully entered that parenthetically and with a caveat about a side note, to distinguish it from the body of my argument. I have the right, whether or not you are willing to concede it, to make such observations, and made the osbservation specifically external to my argument.



Once again, you twist my argument in order to set up your own against what i've written. The theme of my argument throughout was the manipulation of the beliefs of the charismatic christians for the personal ends of demagogues. Although christianity certainly deserves to be recognized as a defining set of principles among those who rebelled against George III, it is completely false to identify them with charismatic christians. In fact, the excesses of the establishment reaction to the revivalism in the period of the "Great Awakening" of the early 18th century was seminal in the recognition of the population at large of the necessity to raise what Jefferson called "a wall of separation between church and state." The "New Light" revivalists were a noisy minority, just as are the followers of Robertson and Fallwell today. That you conflate them with the great majority of christians who do not ascribe to the fundamentalist agendae of such men is evidence of the lengths you will go to in a disingenuous attack on my argument. You see, George, when you attempt to frame the debate in terms conducive to your argument, i will come back just as vigorously against that attempt as you do against mine. It is upon that conflation of mainstream christianity with the right-wing fringe of christianity that you base your arguments about the social and political virtues which have built and kept our nation strong--but you're dealing with oranges and apples here. The successful resistance of mainstream organized religions to the blandishments of such demagogues has certainly been crucial to curtailing their power to manipulate the polity. Father Coughlin in the 1930's, using the powerful, then new medium of radio, attempted the same sort of manipulation, but ultimately failed because his appeal was to those out of the mainstream of christianity as it is practiced in this country. Once again, i rail against the demagogues who would use the credulous members of the religious fringe to push through their agenda--they, both the leaders and the lead, are those who have ever sought in our history to enthrone a narrow exclusivity. It is they, both leaders and lead, who have dredged up the monsters of bigotry and prejudice in every generation--and attempted to seize political power to practice that exclusivity.



I know not of which critics you make reference. Insofar as regards this discussion, you are the only critic of what i've written to have appeared so far. Indeed, the vocabulary tailored for use by the right-wing of christianity in this country has the equivalent value of that employed by the left wing. This paragraph is a truly inflated flight of fancy. I am not one of the very public figures i condemn, i have no legion of critics against whom to defend what i write--this portion makes little sense. And for that reason, i will say to you that in the following quote of your closing remarks, you need only remove my name, and speak it aloud while facing a mirror.

george

You have to hand it to the man. I mean, it isn't as if the modern evangelical movement doesn't have some real wingnuts who want to play shephard. And who do have real influence in America. Permit me to quote a piece from an article by Didion I'm re-reading that "...Jerry Falwell, on his Old Time Gospel Hour, was marketing The Clinton Chronicles, the forty-dollar videio asserting that Clinton had ordered the murders of Arkansas opponents and governed the state 'hooked on cocaine'...

And for comparable secular humanist figures, where do the apologists for such pathology evidenced above point to as comparable 'leaders'...Hollywood actors and university professors - the liberal elite. And what are they guilty of? You know, compared to Jerry above?...spreading bad ideas and fornicating.

You have to admit, Setanta has a point here.

My initial response to the question embodied in this thread was: "No." I stand by it, and expand upon it to say that, rather there is yet another attempt in our history to enshrine a narrow bigoted and exclusive version of protestant christianity in the places of power. Raising an alarm against "secular humanism" is a tactic of the demagogues leading the charge to throw sand in the eyes of the majority of christians in this country. I'm rather surprised to see George fall for that nonsense, and to attempt to posit the case himself.

George doth protest mucheth, I didst note it.

Tartarin, i'll not clutter up the thread with it, because it is off-topic, but i have a bushel basket full of quotes of Presidents and political leaders from Madison to Hoover, and including Grant and Theodore Roosevelt in which they decry the special status of religious organizations and call for them to be taxed.

Very lately, we here in Canada have found ourselves (as Rick Mercer put it) living in a European country. It began with Iraq...no, actually it began just before when the Prime Minister's assistant referred to Bush as 'that moron'. Then there was the Iraq thing with trumpets and yelling and flags and evil...and we didn't play with George and we played with sane people instead. And now we are decriminalizing marijuana possession for personal use AND allowing homosexuals to get married. There is apoplexy in Washington. I am, I confess, gleeful.

The church is stewing in its own foul juices and trying to tow the country behind it. George's personal religious beliefs seem to be sincerely held BUT THEY ARE PERSONAL, and the moment George and other like-minded people try to impose their beliefs (or their Bible, or fantasy-life, as some think) on the socio-political structure, they are betraying the whole nation. They're no less guilty than Islamic fundamentalists trying to blow us up. Far better than they should be good citizens with private values informing their public participation but not (with enormous, destructive arrogance) use those private values to change society to conform to their beliefs (or their Bible, or fantasy life...)

Setanta,

Well, as an old question framer and argument twister of long standing, I must note that you too are particularly skilled at these rhetorical arts. I generally try to keep a discrete distance between my use of the arts and my criticism of others for using them, but each of us must make his own choices.

I note the very defensive character of your response and interpret it as an indicator of the validity of my basic points; (1) You are attacking a straw man in the Protestant Evangelical movement, casting sweeping criticism of its adherents (unintelligent) and pointed attacks on its leaders (men on horseback). (2) You have mischaracterized the opposition here as being composed only of the aforementioned Protestant Evangelicals, when, as a matter of obvious fact, it has a far broader base. (3) You have made utterly unsupported, and indefensible claims that the vocabulary of politically correct euphemisms that so frequently infect modern secular discourse is matched by one on the other side (this, of course is an old rhetorical trick, intended, not to answer a criticism, but to deflect a question).

I did look in your mirror and did see a taste for occasionally florid rhetoric and passionately held views. Indeed that's what enables me to appreciate you so much. However one must moderate his use of such tasty sauces.

I will readily concede the excesses of the Evangelical movement. However, I don't believe they constitute a proximate hazard to our liberties (I can almost hear Tartarin mobilizing a counterattack on this point). The question I am attempting to frame has more to do with the excesses on the other side. It would have been easy for me to have used various advocacy groups, such as NOW, PETA, Earthfirst, NAMBLA, and others of that ilk as the vanguard of the opposing views, and to have attacked them as the proof that their ideas are dangerous. That would have been a tactic, analogous to yours, for the opposing argument. I have not used that tactic - and I don't use it now. My concern has to do with the intrusion of government into areas once reserved for religion and traditional morality.

Damn, George, you insist on using "unintelligent" as though i had applied that to the christian right. You're a goddamned liar, for the second time in a row. I no longer consider it worth my while responding to you, 'cause you cheat. I got as far as your second attempt to indict me for writing what i did not in fact write, and decided "to hell with George."

Setanta,

Testy ! I checked and, it is true, you did not apply the term 'unintelligent' to the Christian right. I was wrong: substitute "having more conviction than understanding" for 'unintelligent' in my last post. Note that nothing is changed.

I am not a liar, and will consider your use of the term as a rhetorical excess, as opposed to a considered assessment.

When you twice brand me with the same specious charge, you can expect that sort of thing. Before abandoning any further discussion of this topic with you, allow me to enlighten you on to what i referred in mentioning Wallace and Tyler. William Wallace lead a popular movement to undo the damage done by Edward I's 1285 invasion of Scotland. He had no political agenda, and, like Pooh, was a bear of little brain; he sought not wealth, nor privilege, nor political ascendance. He pedalled no moral claptrap, and served only as an inspirational leader to thousands of Scots who were figuratively milling about awaiting a guide to take them in a direction which they intended of their own will.

Wat Tyler is usually credited with the leadership of a 1381 rebellion by peasants against Edward I's great grandson, Richard II. In point of fact, this rebellion did have an intellectual leader--John Ball, a levelling cleric who wrote: "When Adam dolve, and Eve span, who was then the Gentleman?" -- a very clever little verse which focused for the peasantry the greivance which boiled up in their collective breast, making the insurrection possible. Wat Tyler was the archetypal "man on horseback" (an anachronistic application, in that the term was coined to describe General Boulanger at the time of his failed 1889 coup attempt in Paris). He was another Winnie the Pooh, leading the masses on to their eventual doom.

I used Wallace and Tyler as examples to contrast with the likes of Robertson, Fallwell and Buchanan--as they are far from unintelligent. I also suspect they would never wish to be "the man on horseback" as it would make too fine a target. I rather see them dodging through a crowd of their adherents, making a more difficult, moving target, with plenty of "human shields."

You completely failed to take my meaning, and i would laugh at any attempt on your part to contend that it was not clear, were it not for the fact that i will shun this thread in future like the sarcoptic mange.

Lola,

In response to your earlier post - A wall between government and Religion is one thing. However putting wheels under the wall and rolling it into the territory once occupied by religion, and then excluding religion on the grounds of preserving the wall, is quite a different matter.

Primary education in this country was originally a community and most often a religious affair. It was not until the waves of immigration in the 19th century that we systematically organized universal public education. The significant involvement of the Federal government did not begin until after WWII.

Now we have a vast Federal bureaucracy involved in the design, funding, and control of educational processes; similar bureaucracies in the States; and surrounding them all, well organized monopolies of teachers unions, associations, textbook publishers and others; - all feeding themselves on a system that consumes ever more resources, while delivering ever decreasing results,and resisting objective measurement of results and accountability in every form, but demanding an ever-expanding role in the social indoctrination (as opposed to education) of our children.

Many believe the only way to reform this system is to break the several bounds of its monopolistic control of our educational establishment. Many believe Vouchers, which give parents of all social groups the right to act in their self interest in the education of their children is the right answer. I am one of these. In many cases religious schools will rise to fill some of this new, needed capacity. However there is nothing unconstitutional in this and nothing that threatens to break the barriers between government and religion. The process merely involves government reserving money for the education of children by collecting taxes and redistributing the funds to parents for the education of their children. If you oppose that, I would be quite willing to accept the elimination of all taxes designed to support public education and allow individual choice by families using their own money.

I'm not against vouchers, but to set a "vast Federal bureaucracy..." etc. against a Christian education is to set up a straw man. If the Federal bureaucracy is bad (and I think it has become so in many ways), it certainly wouldn't improve kids opportunities to turn them over -- willy-nilly -- to a system based on superstitions.

What's needed is a first-rate secular public system -- in which every student is first and foremost a scholar. Those who want their children to be infused with other stuff should be allowed to do so (and given a small portion of their school taxes back) but OUTSIDE of the public system. The public system should be able to rely year-in and year-out on dollars which closely match our defense dollars.... or better. I'll go one step further here: the public system should never have lower standards than the best of the private schools -- measured by class size, facilities, teacher salaries and the other common measurements. That will require a financial levelling process -- one helluva change, but a necessary one.

Setanta,

Actually I expected better from you.

Believe it ir not, I thought your original reference was to George Wallace, not William. Somehow the late '60 political struggles here seemed closer to the issues under discussion than did the struggles between Scotland and the early Norman kings of England. I'm familiar with William Wallace and Gen. Boulanger, but not Wat Tyler.

Leave if it suits you, but recognize that, apart from all the quibbling, you haven't addressed any of the points in my rebuttal. Evidently they stand.

Tartarin,

Interesting and reasonable points.

I believe the core issue is whether the monopolistic public educational system can be reformed without competition. It shows all the signs of being beyond reform in any manner: resistance to objective measures of its performance; resistance to the surrender of any aspects of its monopolistic control of public resources; resistance to competition; and increasing incidence of fraud and corruption in its operation.

It is merely a fact that, on average, parochial and private schools have and continue to far outperform public schools and consume far fewer resources in doing so. The standard excuse offered by the educational establishment is that, unlike private or parochial schools, they must deal with all students - they don't have the option of failing or dismissing bad students. That, of course, is an outright misstatement of fact. The truth is the public establishment refuses to use its authority to enforce standards, to fail students who do not perform. Instead it hides its failures behind this mythical 'social burden'. Governed as it is by these ideas, it will continue to fail, and will remain immune to any attempt to reform it.

Interesting thought about competition, George, and I wonder too. Those of us who have experienced education at any level outside of this country might share with me the desire to see our public education system compared with similar systems in other countries. We'd not do well at first -- but I'd just as soon see the competition in place...

The "social burden" you mention is, of course, residual racism and -- what's it called -- economicism. Schools here also toss kids back out into the community in the early afternoon rather than (for example, as in English comprehensive schools) in the early evening. Eight serious hours of education with much less emphasis on sports (that's what I got in private schools). Then they go home at a time when most parents are at home. And other things like O and A levels (disputed). In any event, it isn't hard to demand that we lift the standards, compete against the best non-American systems. What are we, 26th overall in the world? Something like that. Gee, wouldn't it be nice to be, say, 18th, or 11th instead?! Shouldn't we be in the top 5 given our resources?

Guaranteed free K-12, subsidized through college and graduate school. In "my system" (when I'm dictator!), each child born a citizen would be guaranteed a substantial educational trust fund (lock box!) from which educational costs would be drawn....