Sep 6, 2012

Aren't we done with all this?

Here's a fact for you: atheists are the least trusted group in the US. So, it shouldn't surprise you to read that there is a big hubbub over a slip by the Democrats to put religious faith in their platform. The platform is linked here. The relevant part related to religious faith is here:
Faith. Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith- based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world—from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.
Aren't we done with this yet? Can't we realize that belief in an invisible force guiding everything has zero bearing on whether or not someone is a good person or can hold public office? (In fact, the argument could be made to the converse, but I won't go there).

Of course, the answer in the US is "No, we're not done." In fact, this is underlying most of the entire differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, even though both are actually officially making note that they are all proud to be still believing in Bronze-Age religions in the 21st century. The entirety of the mindset can be summed up by Chuck Norris's wife Gena:

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into 1000 years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
I didn't really know what to say about this. Of course, the 1000 year of darkness is a reference to Revelation Chapter 20. In the mythology there, Satan rules for 1000 years and then (after apparently letting us suffer long enough), Jesus comes back again to rule us forever, and... well, the text isn't so clear about the next part, but apparently it's really good. Hymns, adoringly gazing upon God's face, cloud-infused herbal teas, more hymns and adoring gazes, the works.

Now, think about this... a woman is going on national television, saying that re-electing our current President is actually going to cause an invisible, all-evil fallen angel to descend (or ascend?) into our world and cause "Bad things" for 1000 years. Of course, one must wonder why the FIRST four years of Obama's presidency didn't bring this on. Perhaps that's the "Satan Tryout" period? In any case, that's besides the point. The point is that a belief in a neolithic myth still is an actual point of contention today, in the 21st century. I stand with my jaw open at the sheer inanity of this statement.

I must say, I have to wonder what these "1000 years of darkness" really entail in Gena Norris' mind; a world where evidence is used to inform decisions, health care is decided by doctors and their patients, all people have the same rights, evolution and cosmology are taught without having to nod to neolithic superstitions, women have reproductive control over their own bodies, life-saving research on stem cells can be performed unhindered, and we finally don't have to listen to religious platitudes every time we want to elect a leader of the US.

Gee, how terrible. Can't imagine a worse fate for us all.

1 comment:

Staid Winnow said...

The Democrats almost had it, till Villairagosa decided that he could decipher 2:1 in decibels with a voice vote if he could just hear it three times.