Why the Biggest Obstacle to Fixing the Economy is Religion

When the oh-so-"moderate" evangelicals whom President-elect Obama is working so hard to please turn on him and attack his efforts to repair and modernize the social safety net, don't be surprised.

Order this copy of Free Inquiry and read the print-only article by Gregory Paul: The Big Religion Questions Finally Solved.

In that article, Paul demonstrates why the relgious must oppose social advancements like progressive taxation, universal health care, strong unions and free public education or else face their own extinction.

Because in every industrialized nation on the planet, low levels of economic disparity, high middle-class economic security and a strong social safety net correlate strongly with widespread secularism.

In other words, the more dysfunctional a society is, the more religious it tends to be.

Analyzing numerous large surveys of world populations, Paul finds:

Among the first world's 19 prosperous democracies, all but the United States have adopted pragmatic, progressive and secular socioeconomic policies that maximize the financial security of the middle class (that is to say, the majority of citizens.)

In most first-world countries, it is hard to lose middle-class status - no western European or Australian goes bankrupt due to overwhelming medical bills. These high levels of financial security, lower levels of income disparity, and more modest rates of societal dysfunction reduce personal stress levels to the degree that middle-class majorities in western Europe, Canada and Australia feel secure and comfortable.

This security and comfort being achieved, the number of citizens who feel the need to seek the aid and protection of supernatural deities has sunken to historic lows and citizens abandon their former churches in droves.

In addition, comprehensive governmental social assistance programs displace much of the faith-based charitable complex that churches have historically used to extend their influence over the lay population.

Moreover, secular societies tend to favor other pragmatic social policies such as extensive sex-education and domestic violence intervention that further surpess societal dysfunctions.

The popular secularization these pragmatic policies induce is accidental, but nonetheless the effect is so powerful that is has occurred in every progressive first-world democracy. it has occurred despite the absence of a large-scale organized atheistic movement and has yet to be reversed in any country by a major religious revival.

Wonder why "religious leaders" so admantly oppose economic support programs that would help their own congregations? Because they know, at least subconciously, that the greatest threat to religion is a strong, successful, secure society.

To thrive, or even survive, religion needs a frightened, insecure population and a weak, incompetent government that drives people to seek succor in religion.

So when Rick "I have unlimited compassion for the poor and sick" Warren exhorts his congregation to fight Obama's economic stimulus plan and universal health care, read Paul's article and you'll understand why.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: "Why the Biggest Obstacle to Fixing the Economy is Religion" >>

Why Democrats Soliciting Religious Voters is Silly, Stupid and Suicidal

Two new books on religion and politics, both reviewed in the Washington Monthly, are promoting policies that - if not aborted immediately - will be the death of the Democratic Party.

E.J. Dionne, in Souled Out, says the era of the "religious right" is over, leaving the playing field of faith open to Democrats, and evangelical apologist Amy Sullivan, in The Party Faithful, sings Hallelujah to the Democrats' recent discovery of religion as a political tool.

Let's do a dilation and curettage on this sucker right now before it reaches viability.

I use abortion imagery deliberately, because both Dionne (Catholic) and Sullivan (Protestant Evangelical) single out abortion as the issue on which Democrats have got to get religion if they want to win over voters of faith.

Sullivan laments the fierce opposition of traditional Democratic party fund-raisers to supporting candidates who are pro-life, and criticizes those who resist both the policies and the moral exhortation needed to lower abortion rates and to persuade religious voters that Democrats understand their qualms about current abortion practice.

Well. I haven't encountered a sentence that full of euphemisms and lies covering up nasty truths since the last time I read Leviticus.

There is no such thing as "pro-life." People who say they are "pro-life" are many things - anti-abortion, anti-choice, pro-incest, pro-child-abuse, pro-marital rape, pro-wife beating, pro-abandoned-children, etc. - but the one thing they are not is "pro-life."

"Moral exhortation." Would that be the screams of "Whore!" "Jezebel!" "Murderer!" aimed at any woman who enters a Planned Parenthood Clinic? Or maybe she means the abstinence-only classes that have created an epidemic of sexually-transmitted disease among teen girls.

"Qualms about current abortion practice." I seriously doubt she means qualms about the fact that American women are denied complete medical care in 97 percent of U.S. counties. Or the fact that 17-year-old women cannot save themselves from pregnancy without the express permission of the abusive stepfathers who are raping them. Roe, schmoe.

By the way, ever check to see how easy it is to buy condoms at your local grocery store? Around here, they're behind a locked counter. At my advanced age and orneryness, I have no trouble marching right up to the pharmacist and demanding a dozen boxes, size extra-large, in a voice the whole store can hear, but I hardly expect that level of self-confidence from a 15-year-old. Makes me wanna buy a few gross and hand them out at the junior-high.

Before all you Xians started whining, let me introduce myself: I was religious before religious was cool. Many years ago, I answered the altar call, confessed Jesus Christ as my savior and was immersed baptized.

Yes, I am a recovered born-again. I've seen the Xian angle from both sides, and believe me, it's hard to tell which is uglier.

But this much should be obvious to anyone who's even glanced at political news lately:

Kow-towing to the Xian freakazoids put the repugs into power, but it's also destroying their party for the next several generations.

Copying that playbook may get dems into power for a decade or two, but it'll be their downfall, and sooner rather than later. Here's why:

Repugs and religioids are natural allies for one reason and one reason only: they are both innately right-wing authoritarian. All religions, especially all monotheisms, are innately right-wing authoritarian (RWA).

Right-wing Authoritarianism is by definition: un-democratic, un-constitutional and un-American.

Right-wing Authoritarianism is anathema to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, the United States of America and the Democratic Party.

The Founders understood this. They knew that all religions - all religions - tend toward dictatorship and away from liberty.

Free, democratic government was possible only where religion was confined to the private sphere, never permitted the slightest influence on public life.

I imagine Jamie Madison taking one look at John Yoo's memo justifying torture and searching immediately for its religious source.

Twisting our Democratic and Liberal Principles to attract the authoritarians of "faith" is an act of spiritual and political suicide.

So what, you say? All that matters is corralling enough votes to win, and then we can ignore the religioids until the next election, just like the repugs do?

You don't have to implement their medieval policies to be corrupted by them, but for the sake of argument let's look at just the practical side.

"People of faith" who are receptive to the Democratic argument that Jesus Was a Liberal and Real Christians Care About Poor People and the Environment are already voting Democratic.

The ones who aren't are never going to vote Democratic, even if Jesus himself told them to. Never, never, NEVER.

To put it another way, if you profess New Testament Christian values but don't vote Democratic, there's nothing any Democrat can say to persuade you to do so. Your hypocrisy is terminal.

Soliciting the religious vote gains Democrats nothing and will end up costing us the world.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "Why Democrats Soliciting Religious Voters is Silly, Stupid and Suicidal" >>

At the End of the Day

What is it about Sunday? It seems neither fish nor fowl; is it the end of the week, or the beginning of another, or does it exist somewhere in it's own lazy dimension (on a rainy, dark weekend that we're experiencing here in SWMO, that definitely seems the case).

Let me clear the murk from my mind, and see what I can dredge up for you saucy little squabs (beware of drunken vice presidents with shotguns).

• Does Wikipedia have a prophet motive?

Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.

More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online protest claiming the images, shown on European-language pages and taken from Persian and Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of the encyclopaedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.

In a robust statement on the site, its editors state: 'Wikipedia recognises that there are cultural traditions among some Muslim groups that prohibit depictions of Muhammad and other prophets and that some Muslims are offended when those traditions are violated. However, the prohibitions are not universal among Muslim communities, particularly with the Shia who, while prohibiting the images, are less strict about it.

'Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group.

• Is this what Mike Huckabee had in mind?

Egyptian police have stepped up arrests of persons suspected of having HIV, detaining four men this month in a crackdown that violates basic human rights, two international rights groups said Friday.

New York-based Human Rights Watch and London-based Amnesty International warned in a joint statement that the arrests could undermine HIV/AIDS prevention effort as people in Egypt become increasingly afraid to seek information on the subject.

Police denied making any HIV-related arrests but one police official speaking on condition of anonymity said there is a campaign to get persons registered in hospital records as HIV-positive into treatment in "special clinics." The official said he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The latest arrests bring to eight the number of HIV suspects in detention.

• Speaking of Huckabee, he's making sure that Tom Scholz is not feelin' satisfied.

Tom Scholz, the chief songwriter and founder of the band Boston, has written to Mike Huckabee, complaining of his use of the group’s 1976 song “More Than a Feeling” in his presidential campaign without permission, The Associated Press reported.

Mr. Scholz, who supports Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, for president, objects to the implication that the band has endorsed the candidacy of Mr. Huckabee, a Republican.

• I could take a third of my $$$ and simply set it on fire. It would prove about as effective as this.

President Bush on Sunday said Congress should renew his global AIDS program and preserve a requirement that steers money into abstinence efforts.

Some Democrats want to eliminate a provision in the bill that requires one-third[emphasis mine] of all prevention spending go to abstinence-until-marriage programs. Critics say that while they don't oppose abstinence programs, the inflexible requirement hampers the effort.

• Wait a minute, I think I've seen this movie.

While arguing in court that states are free to enact tougher mercury controls from power plants, the Bush administration pressured dozens of states to accept a scheme that would let some plants evade cleaning up their pollution, government documents show.

Internal Environmental Protection Agency documents and e-mails, obtained by the advocacy group Environmental Defense, show attempts over the past two years to blunt state efforts to make their plants drastically reduce mercury pollution instead of trading for credits that would let them continue it.

An EPA official said the agency's job "is not to pressure states."

Not the agency's job, just a hobby.

There's more: "At the End of the Day" >>

Touched By His Presence

There are times when I have reason to be proud of my alma mater*. This is one of those times. It seems that an organization honoring the Flying Spaghetti Monster is currently the second largest religious club on the campus of Missouri State University. Rock on, pastafarians.

*Note: I can only hope that whomever misspelled "religion" as "religon" in the reporter package was not an alumnus of MSU.

There's more: "Touched By His Presence" >>