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" >>

The Great Dissenter: Happy 175th, Robert Ingersoll

Nothing is greater than to break the chains from the bodies of men -- nothing nobler than to destroy the phantom of the soul.

-- Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)
American politician and lecturer known for his adamant support of scientific and humanistic rationalism.

Between the Civil War and end of the 19th century, the biggest celebrity in America was someone virtually unknown today. The most in-demand speaker of the day, who consistently drew audiences of thousands everywhere he spoke, throughout the nation, was not Mark Twain, but Robert G. Ingersoll.

Colonel Robert Green Ingersoll (August 11, 1833 – July 21, 1899) was a Civil War veteran, American political leader, and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of agnosticism.

SNIP

Ingersoll was most noted as an orator, the most popular of the age, when oratory was public entertainment. He spoke on every subject, from Shakespeare to Reconstruction, but his most popular subjects were agnosticism and the sanctity and refuge of the family. He committed his speeches to memory although they were sometimes more than three hours long. His audiences were said never to be restless.

His radical views on religion, slavery, woman's suffrage, and other issues of the day effectively prevented him from ever pursuing or holding political offices higher than that of state attorney general. Illinois Republicans tried to pressure him into running for governor on the condition that Ingersoll conceal his agnosticism during the campaign, which he refused on the basis that concealing information from the public was immoral.

Many of Ingersoll's speeches advocated freethought and humanism, and often poked fun at religious belief. For this the press often attacked him, but neither his views nor the negative press could stop his rising popularity. At the height of Ingersoll's fame, audiences would pay $1 or more to hear him speak, a giant sum for his day.

Take a few moments Monday to celebrate Ingersoll's birthday by committing to memory Ingersoll's Creed:

Happiness is the only good.
The time to be happy is now.
The place to be happy is here.
The way to be happy is to make others so.

Read the best collection of Ingersoll's philosophy in "What's God Got to Do With It: Robert Ingersoll on Free Speech, Honest Talk and the Separation of Church and State."

Read about the enormous positive role of Freethought in American History in Susan Jacoby's essential book.

Read Ingersoll's complete works online.

Read the most complete collection of Ingersoll's quotes.

Find out more, and support the dedicated but underfunded Council on Secular Humanism here.

Get cool Freethinker and Secular Humanism swag here. How can you resist a website named "Evolvefish?"

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "The Great Dissenter: Happy 175th, Robert Ingersoll" >>

Zeus' Meddling Never Worked, Either

Rev. Wright. "Disbelief" in evolution. Mormons. Rev. Parsley. Muslims. Rev. Hagee.

The unConstitutional influence of religion - and religion's most ludicrous content - on the 2008 Presidential campaign leads me to suggest that we add one more requirement to the list of minimum qualifications for President:

Only atheists need apply.

As a review in The Nation reveals, two new books on religion and government fail to shed light on the issue because they fail to acknowledge, much less address, the central obstacle to any solution: the extreme political power wielded by, and the accompanying refusal to compromise on the part of, the Xian dominionists.

More worrisome are those liberal defenders of religious equality such as Nussbaum and Waldman, who actually do know better and yet strengthen the hand of the theocons by underestimating and even minimalizing the scope of the Christian nationalist challenge. "At this point," Nussbaum writes, "school authorities know that they have to permit an exception for any child who conscientiously objects to participating" in the pledge. That's unlikely in a nation where explicitly religious--and often scientifically inaccurate--ideas about a matter as personal as sex are taught to millions of public school children.

But it's actually far worse. The "religious equality" propounded by "liberal defenders" of religion is not any form of equality that would be recognized by the authors of the Constitution. It is nothing less than permanent primacy for religion at the expense of secularism.

Those well-intended liberal christians, jews, muslims and others working so hard to find a middle ground with the freakazoids remind me a lot of the leftists and socialists of the 1930s. They were so sure of the essential good embodied in communist philosophy that they deliberately ignored the horrific crimes against humanity committed in communism's name.

Christian apologists in particular drive me crazy with their insistence that real Christians are liberals and pacifists. They endlessly quote New Testament passages about Jesus' compassion for the poor, the sick, the condemned.

True, but irrelevant. If the Xians who have the political power and influence in this country are the Xians who effectively reject Jesus and the New Testament in favor of the murderous, racist, misogynist, vicious, hateful, war-mongering god of the Old Testament, then that is the "Christian" view that prevails.

If you think this is all a debate among religious types about angels dancing on pinheads with no effect on your life, read Chris Hedges on American Fascists and their quite serious and well-advanced plans for theocracy.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "Zeus' Meddling Never Worked, Either" >>