Democrats Platform Includes Atheism, First Time in History
So far as anyone has found, no political party platform has ever before acknowledged the right "not to believe" in its religious freedom statement. Obama spoke those words in at least one speech but it has now been approved by a party. Hopefully the Republican Party will see it as competition and will slow its movement toward becoming even more of a "Christian Party."
Religion and its current obsessions, abortion and gays, it typical of the way the economics and politics of Christianity operate in the U. S. Both leaders and their followers get caught up in some sin, latch onto it and ride it as far as it goes. When the sin starts to fade as something to demonize leaders and followers abandon it and jump on a new sin bandwagon.
The "sins" of abortion and homosexuality are following the same path as prohibition. The players are a little different but the overarching story is the same.
Some leaders in Protestantism began calling alcohol a moral issue. Without going deeper into what they said back then, drinking was absolutely a sin. Not only was it a sin, it was the biggest sin around. Money and politically activity needed to be marshalled to outlaw it.
The role of religion gets a bit less clear, however, when we tune into what Jews and Catholics had to say. Wine was used in their sacraments. The huge movement to outlaw alcohol had to exempt wine used in those two faiths. It was known widely clergy in both faiths were selling it illegally. There was, of course, a large industry making illegal beer and whiskey as well as bringing it in illegally from Canada. The hand wringing of Christians over alcohol was every bit as passionate as that today over abortion and gays.
Eventually, the public was ready to move on and the fervor over the sin of drinking began to cool off. Politicians began to see there were more votes in supporting legal alcohol sales than in banning them. It became impossible to claim alcohol was as harmful and sinful as religious leaders had claimed.
I've been wrong before, but I think we are approaching the end of the passion surrounding abortion. It has already been dying about gays. The argument that these are sins at all, let alone the major sins of the day, is without basis in the Bible. It looks to me like the public is preparing to move on to a new major sin.
another of Jon's history lessons, simplistic, off the wall. I think that if he is going to post his views on prohibition he should, at the least, look up the history of the prohibition movement. it was complex, considered by some as a "progressive" cause. and with some nods to the eugenics movement. that aside, I am wondering why we need a "right" to not believe. as far as I know you can believe anything you want these days, including the freedom not to believe. sounds just like a little more political BS, perhaps to appeal to the atheistic electorate.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteUnknown -- "it was complex'
DeleteI agree, Prohibition was complex, many players. But religion was central. Tell me a major Protestant denomination not of Board. Methodists and Southern Baptists were all in. As the blog points out, it was the abortion of that period. Eventually, believers moved on. That is the history of sins in Christianity. One or two is popular for a while, then it is dropped and something else moves up.
" am wondering why we need a 'right' not to believe."
Why is there an anti abortion plank in the Republican Party platform? Every woman has a right not to get an abortion.
bad analogy. abortion is not to be equated with prohibition, except in your mind, of course.
ReplyDeleteUnknown -- "bad analogy. abortion is not to be equated with prohibition..."
ReplyDeleteWithout a background in the study of propaganda I can see why you would not recognize propaganda when it is right in front of you. Prohibition, abortion and anti gay are all the same. There origin is religion. They fit certain cultural trends of their time. And, a set of people make money or increase their influence by opposing them. Each has their time. When times change and self serving opportunities change, each is or will be seen in the rear view mirror.
Just this morning I see that made a full throated endorsement of a statement by a gay appointee of his. The appointee praised Trump as gay friendly. Trump said he was delighted for the endorsement. Religious conservatives have no where to turn but Trump. Since they are in a box with no escape why not throw them under the bus and try to gain some gay votes. Trump could care less about either group but he knows how to jump a sinking ship and cling to another.
as is your wont, you dodge intelligent discussion by reducing terms and topics to some lowest common denominator. in this instance, it's that the term "propaganda" is obviously used pejoratively to indicate any communication that intends to persuade or dissuade. (expect for atheists: we all know that they speak the truth and nothing but the truth). with that said, let's differentiate between legitimate persuasion and propaganda, again the pejorative sense of that word. for me, then, propaganda implies dishonest communication and/or appeal to emotionalism or to sophistry. or, more simply, an attempt to bypass or trick reason. or, in the tradition of Pavlov's dogs, to get an unthinking response to some oft repeated stimulus (as is much advertising and in political "rhetoric"). propaganda, perforce, is shallow, usually touching the surface of a discussion, relying on repeated use of slogans and buzzwords. au contraire, for you propaganda seems to be any attempt to discuss, to persuade. thereby equating Lincoln's second inaugural speech, JLK's inaugural speech, MLK's "I have a Dream" speech with, say, the ravings of some Hyde park soap box looney. maybe you need to read Aristotle's rhetoric some time.
ReplyDeleteUnknown -- "thereby equating Lincoln's second inaugural speech, JFK's inaugural speech, MLK's "I have a dream" speech with some Hyde Park soap box looney."
DeleteLet's compare the three speeches you mentioned, I agree they are not in the category of propaganda, to billboards with only pictures of babies and the words, "Abortion kills." If you claim to know propaganda when you see it you should properly label the pro life billboards as propaganda.
If you don't see them as propaganda you don't understand what it is. The message over and over again, "Life begins at conception" is also propaganda. Nothing about prolife is about intellectual discourse. It is only misdirection, lies and surface level appeal to emotions.
To non believers, you might enjoy visiting the Wikipedia site for "Parody Religion." Its loads of fun. To believers, don't go there. You will be turned into a pillar of salt:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody_religion
Been there. No salt, no meat. I'm aware of most. I've seen worse, (or more), and much older. I have a whole shelf of such material. Some of which is serious stuff. I'm not offended. I'm always looking for contradicting material and movements. No pillar of salt, or a pool of brine.
DeleteJon, “Parody Religion”
Delete“Radical anti-LGBTQ activist Scott Lively told conservative Christians to flee from areas controlled by Democrats because Democratic leaders are planning to burn down cities to escape paying out pensions to their police forces.”
“American Pastors Network’s “Stand In The Gap” radio program, hosts Dave Kistler and Gary Dull asserted that God allowed Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas to get COVID-19 in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment.”
Sometimes the hyper-theism of a few Christian activists, in the sense of exaggerated responses to the challenges of modernity, has a comedic effect on me. They make a “parody religion” of the faith.
Helper--"No pillar of salt, or a pool of brine."
DeleteThat's a relief. Lott's wife did not survive it.
Ardy B -- There is the old question, when does art imitate life and when visa versa. Here is a thread explaining the origin of the Coronavirus:
Deletehttps://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=117825
how's about atheistic stuffed shirts? maybe several to be found on this blog?
DeleteLot's wife was a different context. She looked back, most probably to see what she would miss before leaving.
DeleteJon 0723. might just visit your recommended site. I probably would be amused by the sophomoric humor to be found there. would likely hark me back to my sophomoric years.
ReplyDeleteUnknown --"by the sophomoric humor to be found there."
ReplyDeleteSome might find sophomoric humor in the Bible itself and those who believe in it and preach about it.