Interesting commentary about the recent speeches made by the 2 current
republican frontrunners.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/23/republicans-religion-secular-america

Republicans v secular America

With blatant disregard for the first amendment, Republicans'
intolerance of US secularism means things are turning ugly

If you're part of secular America – that is, if you're an atheist, an
agnostic, a religious liberal or even a mainstream believer who thinks
religion should be kept out of politics and vice-versa – then you
should be very afraid of what the Republican party has in store for
you in 2012.

No news there, you might say. The Republicans, as we all know, have
been in thrall to the Christian right since the Reagan era. But
there's something new, something more intolerant, something truly ugly
in the works. And if you don't believe me, let's start with Tim
Pawlenty, unassuming governor of Minnesota in his day job,
fire-breathing Christian warrior and aspiring presidential candidate
in his spare time.

"I want to share with you four ideas that I think should carry us
forward," Pawlenty said on Friday at the annual gathering of the
Conservative Political Action Committee, or CPAC. After invoking
"basic constitutional principle and basic common sense," he continued:

    "The first one is this: God's in charge. God is in charge ... In
the Declaration of Independence it says we are endowed by our creator
with certain unalienable rights. It doesn't say we're endowed by
Washington, DC, or endowed by the bureaucrats or endowed by state
government. It's by our creator that we are given these rights."

Never mind Pawlenty's fundamental and no doubt deliberate misreading
of the founders' intent. (Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the
Declaration of Independence, is well-known for having cut up a Bible
to remove all supernatural references to Jesus.) How, in practice,
does Pawlenty envision "God's in charge" as a governing principle?

Pawlenty didn't say. But he oozed mild-mannered hatred for anyone who
doesn't share his beliefs. In a bizarre closing in which he invoked
the civil war general (and future president) Ulysses S Grant as some
sort of rough-around-the-edges, proto-Tea Party role model, Pawlenty
trashed anyone who attended "Ivy League schools" or who go to
"chablis-drinking, brie-eating parties in San Francisco". (You can
watch Pawlenty's address at CSPAN.org, starting at the 1:38:30 mark.)
It sounded like a parody of Pat Buchanan's famous 1992 "culture war"
speech. Except that Pawlenty is one of the Republicans' two most
plausible candidates for president in 2012.

The other would be former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who fell
far short of the prize in 2008, but whose legendary self-discipline
has put him in a strong position for 2012.

The trouble is that Romney has already declared war on secular
America. In December 2007, you may recall, he delivered a speech in
which he defended his Mormon religion at a time when he was under
assault from evangelical Christians. It was, in many respects, a
sensible plea for religious tolerance.

Except that Romney called for tolerance only among believers,
explicitly omitting non-believers. "Any believer in religious freedom,
any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and
ally in me," Romney said. "And so it is for hundreds of millions of
our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion –
rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

As New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote the next day, "Romney
described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists,
Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The
nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence
showing respect for the nonreligious." Brooks – a conservative, though
a secular one – warned that Romney was calling for "a culture war
without end".

Romney and Pawlenty are the early front-runners for the Republican
presidential nomination, and it's a good thing: the most frequently
mentioned potential fringe candidates are even worse. If you have not
seen Sarah Palin asking God to build a natural-gas pipeline in Alaska,
well, do yourself a favour right now (see also her recent speech at
the Tea Party convention). Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister,
personifies the Christian right in its purest form. "I hope we answer
the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ," Huckabee said
in 1998. There is no reason to think he's changed his mind.

(I realise that I am leaving out Ron Paul right after he won the CPAC
straw poll. As best as I can tell, Paul actually does believe in a
secular government. But Paul is a libertarian who's entirely out of
step with the Republican party, regardless of how adept he is at
mobilising his devoted followers to pack events like straw polls. He
was unable to establish himself as a serious candidate in 2008, and
there's no reason to think he'll do any better in 2012.)

Barack Obama, in his inaugural address, said that "our patchwork
heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians
and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers. We are shaped by
every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth."

It is that simple, inclusive vision that we're in danger of losing if
Romney or Pawlenty – or, God help us (so to speak), Palin or Huckabee
– is elected president in 2012. In truth, the founders made it clear
in the first amendment that we need not just freedom of religion, but
freedom from religion, especially given that 79% of Americans believe
in miracles.

"While we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and
to observe, the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we
cannot deny an equal freedom to them whose minds have not yielded to
the evidence which has convinced us," wrote James Madison.

In contrast to Madison, the Republicans propose a theocracy of
believers. It is an assault not just on anyone who isn't one of them,
but on the American idea, and on liberal democracies everywhere.

    * guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010


-- 
Larry C. Lyons
web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons
--
The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do.
 - B. F. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know 
on the House of Fusion mailing lists
Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:312532
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5

Reply via email to