Views: 425

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Exactly...Santorum is likely to tag feminism with 'radical' and get all sorts of support by stirring up that segment of conservative Christians who view women as subservient to men in domestic roles, professional roles, and, of course, political roles.   All positions of economic power.  All decision-making roles...well, unless it's about 'what's for dinner', Santorum will give us THAT choice.  We certainly can't be trusted with reproductive freedom!  The fact that there are women who support Santorum as president is scary to me...and to think I was spending so much time being mystified by the support NEWT was getting a few weeks ago.

"...that there are women who support Santorum as president is scary...."

Mojo, it both scares and saddens me.

I first saw the term "learned helplessness" in the late 1970s, and heard of young feminists (in their 30s) expressing anger that their mothers had been helpless. Some of them spoke with their mothers and later reported that their mothers had said everything in their early lives had reinforced that helplessness.

The women on my mom's side of the family somehow escaped that learning; I was about ten when an aunt, while talking with other women, said "If he hits me one time, there won't be a second time."

Many women had not escaped. When I was in my mid-20s (after I'd quit Catholicism) I saw that helplessness in many women my age. Seeing it in one woman I was interested in saddened me. Seeing it in so many women angered me.

That helplessness afflicts some Catholic men I know. Santorum seems helpless to express any view that differs from those of Catholicism.

I turned away from religion (Lutheran) in my early 20's for the very reasons you're providing above.  I have always been a Democrat because the political party recognizes many of the issues that I have been concerned about my entire adult life (I'm 49 now): violence against women, reproductive freedom, free speech, secular public education, social justice.  And separation of Church and State...which is never brought up as an issue with the Republican Party, is it?  The right wing of the party doesn't seem to think it's a problem and would probably see it as downright acceptable! 

I know what you mean about learned helplessness...but apathy is just as strong out there...I mostly experience cynicism from the community I live in.  The broad brush stroke of: They're all a bunch of crooks.

Republicans never bring up separation of church and state until it appears to be to their advantage, as, e.g. their claim that secularism is a religion and that Obama violated the establishment clause when he put "his religion [of secularism] over that of Christians."  You just can't win with these throwbacks.

They probably get their claim that secularism is a religion from a footnote in a US Supreme Court case identified in law books as Torcaso v. Watkins.

Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.

Of  course, they see stretching the truth, and even lying, for their religion as moral.

BTW, there are now many decisions of courts on the web. I googled "scotus torcaso" and found that one. I knew the name of the case because I happened to see a reference to it a few days ago. Since I know few cases by the parties' names, I'm going to try googling "scotus free speech" or "scotus religion" and see what the web has.


The Supreme Court is not immune from utterly stupid observations (being an attorney, I am allowed to argue that point).  I am sure all on this site are aware of the Dred Scott decision.  Just about as bad was Bush v. Gore.  Note that all of the beliefs with the exception of "Ethical Culture" and "Secular Humanism" are capitalized.  The justice may have been under the mistaken impression that these two groups actually were united under a common name and were tight-knit like the mainstream religious sects.  This is besides the point, since some Catholics still go to cathedrals using the Latin Mass, and the Episcopalians are ordaining female pastors, while other sects attach the word "United" to their name to denote a more liberal belief system, sometimes even embracing gays and lesbians. 

I must look up the Torcaso opinion to find out who said such a silly thing.  There is a tenet of law known as ejusdem generis.  If your contract says, "I bequeath to my child, Tom, my pear trees, peach trees, and apricot trees, and so forth" Tom cannot later claim that he does not have to share the lemon trees with David, his brother.  Why?  Because a lemon tree, not being mentioned in the list, and having nothing in common with fruit trees (they are not a citrus plant, after all) are not by will the exclusive property of Tom.  The religious groups set out in the opinion are all capitalized.  There is an ejusdem generis characteristic in Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, and Mormon as well: all require belief in God.  I don't think many secularists believe in God.  Thus, the religious right tells two lies: that Obama is a secularist, and that pushing secularism violates the First Amendment.  I would argue it is almost a sacred duty we have to halt the seeming slow march toward Christer theocracy, which is the Ultimate Violation of the 1st Amendment.

Just watched the ABC Evening News with David Muir.  The way that the Presidents people answered Santorms accusation of the President not basing the way he runs the country based on thetheology (I'm not  using the exact words) bible was to say that what Santorum said was despicable, crossing the line, etc.  WHY DOESN'T ANYONE SAY THE WAY THE COUNTRY IS RUN IS NOT AND SHOULD NEVER BE BASED ON THE BIBLE.  SERIOUSLY!!!!  HAS the country gone ENTIRELY CRAZY??????????????????

Sorry, hadn't read all the posts before posting this.  I was just so stunned I guess.

I know what you mean.  When Santorum makes accusations about Obama basing his 'agenda' on 'phony theology', somebody really needs to step up to the microphone here and say that it's not the President's ROLE to use theology when making policy decisions affecting the entire country. I hope somebody asks Mr. S to explain the concept of Separation of Church and State so he can blunder all over the place and make himself look even more foolish.

Believer and non-believer, religiously affiliated, and religiously unaffiliated ...we're all American citizens here, Rick, whether you like it or not.  (Rick's got a wacky sense of Christian entitlement but doesn't seem to have the sense to cool down the moralistic rhetoric!)

Who will step up?  I hope SOMEBODY does.  It's all about playing the politics game.  Obamas camp isn't going to point out that policy decisions aren't and should NEVER be based on the bible or any religion because they are more afraid of not getting re-elected than pointing this out.  In my opinion anyway.  It's INSANE.  It just made me so upset.  I can also imagine other Americans who are not xtians being upset by this.  How DARE any president or presidential candidate even act like it's remotely okay to say they are going to run OUR country based on the bible rather than on the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.  It's criminal and traitorous in my opinion.

Aren't you being a bit naive or overlooking something?  The Santorums of this world have worked hard in the past ten or so years to prove up their theory that the wall of separation is a "myth."  They claim that the founders were Christian (when, actually, some were Christian; others were Deists at most).  This allows them to claim that the Declaration's "endowed by their Creator" is a reference to the Christian god.  They also claim that Jefferson was misquoted when he spoke of the First Amendment as the embodiment of the wall of separation.  Dumbass Christers come along and argue that there is no mention of the wall of separation in the Constitution, which is akin to their claim that there is no right of privacy in the First Amendment (in ploys to overturn or at least legislate against, Roe v. Wade). Santorum doesn't need to "explain" the wall of separation: he argues against it.  The founders are rolling in their tombs.

I liked what Matt Dillahunty said about this.  The trinity doesn't appear in the Bible either, but people accept it.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service