Religious Conservatives are a danger to America

I wanted to take the opportunity today to dispel a couple of persistent myths that is passed around as truth. I use a service that looks for certain keywords on various Internet pages expressing viewpoints.

One of the keywords I use is “secular humanism”.

I found an article on a “conservative” website that expressed once again the myth that secular humanists control everything.

The other myth I want to lay to rest is that Christians are 1. a minority in the US and 2. Persecuted for their beliefs.

Secular Humanism controls everything?

Here is the text in question:

While our troops try to win a world war launched by Islam, America’s Christians and Jews at home confront another religious every bit as ambitious and aggressive as Islam–secular humanism. These are the folks who wish to silence the churches, erase the Ten Commandments from the template of civilization, sexualize children, and abolish the family. In return, they offer us a new god–man. More specifically, liberal, elite man in all his implacable glory.

It does us little good to defeat Islam if we can’t defeat the immoralists, too. The only difference is that this war will be fought with ballots, not bullets.

We have an enormous amount of cleaning up to do. The humanists control higher education and the public schools; the mainstream news media and the entertainment industry; the judiciary and the Democratic Party; the scientific establishment, and even the liberal church denominations. They’ve been making inroads since the early Nineteenth Century, mostly without opposition. The roots of this poisonous tree run very deep.

http://www.bushcountry.org/news/nov_news_pages/g_111004_duigon_moral_war_continues.htm

The article is simply wrong on many points – ok all of them – and it does nothing except stoke fear mongering.

First the author has no idea what secular humanism is. In articles like that the writer typically uses the term for the bogey man effect just like conservative writers during the cold war used communism. They rarely define secular humanism and when they do they simply get it wrong. They also attribute “secular” behavior – like protecting the freedom of religion – as secular humanism when they disagree with the action.

I should know what secular humanism is since I AM a secular humanist. The Council of Secular Humanism has the following brief definition about what secular humanism is:

Secular humanists do not rely upon gods or other supernatural forces to solve their problems or provide guidance for their conduct. They rely instead upon the application of reason, the lessons of history, and personal experience to form an ethical/moral foundation and to create meaning in life. Secular humanists look to the methodology of science as the most reliable source of information about what is factual or true about the universe we all share, acknowledging that new discoveries will always alter and expand our understanding of it and perhaps change our approach to ethical issues as well.

Simply put, religion and God is not relevant to our beliefs and philosophy of life. It is our world view and nothing more. For a person to be a secular humanist they must agree with the text noted above.

For an argument to prove that secular humanists control the schools, the media, the Democratic Party, etc… then one MUST offer evidence that a majority of people who work in those area are in fact subscribe to secular humanism as defined above.

While it is possible it is not a fact and is not true. Why? Because the number of people who are secular humanists is too small to account for all the areas it is said we control.

In a survey of religious identification conducted in 2001 showed only approximately. 100,000 people identified themselves as Humanist or as Secular with no label listed as secular humanist. That’s 100,000 out of 208,000,000 people over the age of 18. If I had answered the survey I would have picked Humanist and on the survey that was 49,000 people.

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/aris_index.htm

When the legal system is used to disentangle government from religion, it does NOTHING to the believer and their beliefs. They can still pray, go to church, or follow the 10 Commandments. We just don’t want the government to be involved with religion and I am sure most Christians would agree.

Not all secular humanists are atheists nor are they all Democrats and if the writer would actually talk to secular humanists then he would know the truth.

Christians are persecuted?

Not in the United States.

The 1st Amendment prohibits that and when cases have come before the courts, religious rights are protected. For every case that removes the 10 Commandments from a court house there is a case that allows a religious group to meet in a school building as any other community group can.

Why do religious conservatives believe that they are a minority being persecuted?

In a study published in the US News and World Report had this as a possible explanation:

Evangelicals motivate each other by thinking of themselves, much as the first Christians did as an embattled minority, marginalized at best or persecuted at worst for their religious beliefs. While other Americans may not necessarily see them in this way, what is most important is that this is how evangelical Christians see themselves. And it is their shared profound dissatisfaction with aspects of the American mainstream that gives them cause to fight to be heard by the American mainstream.

http://www.benedictionblogson.com/archives/000748.php

While those issues I care about like gay rights, abortion, and separation of church and state doesn’t impose anything on a Christian, their actions in the opposite impose their beliefs on everyone. Who is really causing the ruin of America? It isn’t secular humanists, we are the persecuted minority.

“Moral Values” cause ignorance

Here is a look at “moral values” that some continue to insist decided the 2004 Presidential Election. The first view is from the Red area with a rebuttal from a Blue state supporter:

Conservatives in rural Ohio big key in Bush victory

OTTAWA, Ohio (AP) – Glen Beutler lost his job making patio doors when his employer shut down three years ago.

He was exactly the kind of voter John Kerry was counting on to help him defeat President Bush.

Instead, Beutler and many of his neighbors across rural Ohio worried about the economy voted for Bush because they felt he shared their values on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and gun owner rights.

“Around here, family and values still comes first,” Beutler said.

“It was nice to see the rural people have the advantage this time,” said Cora Bour, the GOP chairwoman in Seneca County.

“In our area, we have a lot of farmers and people who are just down to earth,” she said. “A lot of people see that in President Bush. A lot of it had to do with his faith too. That’s the way we are around here.”

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/news/updates/9988.html

Am I Blue?
I apologize for everything I believe in. May I go now?

By Michael Kinsley

Sunday, November 7, 2004 Washington Post

There’s just one little request I have. If it’s not too much trouble, of course. Call me profoundly misguided if you want. Call me immoral if you must. But could you please stop calling me arrogant and elitist?

I mean, look at it this way. (If you don’t mind, that is.) It’s true that people on my side of the divide want to live in a society where women are free to choose abortion and where gay relationships have full civil equality with straight ones. And you want to live in a society where the opposite is true. These are some of those conflicting values everyone is talking about. But at least my values — as deplorable as I’m sure they are — don’t involve any direct imposition on you. We don’t want to force you to have an abortion or to marry someone of the same gender, whereas you do want to close out those possibilities for us. Which is more arrogant?

We on my side of the great divide don’t, for the most part, believe that our values are direct orders from God. We don’t claim that they are immutable and beyond argument. We are, if anything, crippled by reason and open-mindedness, by a desire to persuade rather than insist. Which philosophy is more elitist? Which is more contemptuous of people who disagree?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29470-2004Nov5.html

I simply find it amazing that people will vote against their best interests for the sake of “moral values”. Our government was created to protect the rights of all citizens. It is highly unamerican for a group to pass laws or support candidates who want to discriminate simply because “they” don’t like what they want to outlaw.

As Kinsley said, how arrogant is that?

The same people who voted against Kerry because he “might” want to ban guns (though he never said it) are the same ones who want to prevent a group of people from committing to the person they love in a legal union.

They are the same people who want to force women to carry unwanted babies to term yet don’t bat an eye at the government sending their children into a war that was not needed and hasn’t made the nation safer.

They are the same people who trust Bush with the economy even when they lose their jobs or savings to unethical business practices allowed and encouraged by the same administration.

A friend of mine tried to say, before the election, that the electorate was ignorant if they voted for Bush. I tried to dissuade him from saying that with no evidence. Now I am coming around to his way of thinking.

Bush won? How the heck did that happen?

In my younger days, I had bullies causing me all sorts of problems. A favorite tactic that I fell for several times would be where the bully would act nice toward me for no apparent reason. Once I was sucked in – WHAM! – a sucker punch to the gut.

That is how I felt at 3:30 am on November 3rd when it was clear that George W. Bush would be getting a second term as President in the 2004 Presidential election.

Bush, who is an political idiot, who was accepted to Yale only as a legacy, who is ignorant of the rest of the world, who on the influence of neo-conservative fascists invaded Iraq to settle a score and force democracy on a culture who doesn’t know what that really is, who’s job approval rating has been below 50% for most of the year, who scored lower than challenger John Kerry in almost every category in a pre-election poll on November 1st, who claims God speaks to him in an obvious effort to pander to the country’s evangelical Christians, who’s “war on terrorism” is not a declared war and is in fact a war on our civil rights though the Patriot Act, and who is not trusted by a majority of the rest of the world – pulled off the most mind numbing election victory since Truman beat Dewey in 1948.

Not only did “Monkey Boy” win the Electoral College vote but also won the popular vote by almost 4 million.

The talking pinheads in the media noted 3 areas that helped him win. There continues to be a shift in population to the south and west from the Northeast and Midwest. A resurgence in religious belief. And the war on terrorism.

Very early in the morning on November 3rd with Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico still out, the math showed that if the states voted as they did in 2000, Bush would gain 7 electoral votes just from the population change since 2000. The population change was an issue in 2000 yet Al Gore won the popular vote so the population change was not a significant reason Bush won.

The pandering to the conservative religious voters in the rural breadbasket and south was also there in 2000. The Democrats knew that was a concern and that is why Gore picked Joe Lieberman, a Jewish conservative, to allow them to pander to cultural issues. Religion in 2004 was not a significant factor in Bush’s victory. Although it was more of a factor than the population shift.

The issue that seemed to tip the election, in my view, was the war on terror. Specifically the occupation of Iraq. The poll that showed Bush was not doing a good job overall and he didn’t plan the Iraq operation very well, also expressed the respondents idea that Iraq was part of the war on terror, the invasion was necessary, that the invasion made the US safer, and that Bush was the guy to finish the job. None of that is factually true. Iraq didn’t attack us. There was no reason in 2003 to invade and it has not made us safer. With the main terrorist ring leader Bin Laden on the loose, all the war in Iraq has done is created a hostile meat grinder for our young men and women in the military.

At one point late in the election season, most Republican talking heads were actually arguing that the Iraq war was a good thing because they would rather the terrorists kill innocents in Iraq than on US soil. Iraq is now a safety valve?

Yes, my head hurts too. Like I said, based on the feelings of the electorate, Bush shouldn’t have won. My hometown paper, The Columbus Dispatch, gave Bush their grudging endorsement based only on the fact that Bush was the current occupant.

How else can one explain the 5% gain Bush got from the women’s vote (48%) and the unchanged 23% of the gay/lesbian vote? Two groups, who’s issues Bush has been on the wrong side of during his first term, still supported the guy.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/prez.key/index.html
http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=21570

Some of my friends felt that John Kerry’s campaign failed to deal with the negative mud slinging flung Kerry’s way such as the Medal controversy and the Swift Boat Vets. That is not what brought the victory to Bush. The pre-election polls showed that voters respected Kerry’s service. The only issue they had with him was they didn’t really know who he was and what he stood for. In an effort not to piss anyone off the campaign tried to be all things to all people. Voters knew where Bush stood on the issues. His positions hadn’t changed in more than 3 years. It just so happened that his position on terrorism and Iraq matched enough of the electorate’s views to get him the victory.

Still it was the fact that almost 4 million people, who were educated enough to vote, voted against their best interest for reasons that have proven to be false under every challenge, that handed George W. Bush, his stunning victory. Their lack of rational decision making will not be a good time for the 55 million people who voted against Bush at least for the next 2 years and probably for the entire 2nd term.

What is next for the Democrats?

Bill Clinton. Not literarily him but a candidate with the same background.

The Dems will have to support someone who is from the south or west who is on the conservative side on value issues or who at least speaks their language. Someone from the Northeast, like Kerry, may be able to bring in the cash but outside of the urban areas they are simply unelectable.

There is a possibly that John McCain could run in 2008 for the GOP. I would vote for him because he is able to appear moderate while still supporting the GOP base. He would have the appeal of Reagan. The Democrats MUST be able to field a candidate with similar broad appeal. The days of Northeastern liberalism as a strong force in the Democratic party is over.

Bill Clinton started the New Democrats group that was able to get him elected twice to office and they did it by joining the liberal and conservative elements together. I remember my more liberal friends were livid about that because they believed that only a Dem who was a dyed in the wool liberal should lead the party. The elections of 2000 and 2004 shows that reasoning is false and they will continue to lose elections if they don’t try to build broad appeal.

The only thing those of us who supported Kerry can hope for is either the GOP playing their hand too far as they did with the Contract for America, an economy that goes all the way into the dumper, or a morass in Iraq with maybe a widening into Iran.

They need to focus in the short term on local and Congressional races.

If I could vote, who would I vote for????

I don’t live in Hancock county. I was born and raised there so I am interested in the elections there. If I were to vote there here is who I recommend:

United States Senator Eric D. Fingerhut, US Representative To Congress 4Th District Ben Konop, House Of Representatives 76Th District Kenneth J. Ludwig

Commissioner 1/3/2005 Christopher Cox

The other local offices have no challengers and none of the incumbents are that bad but it is sad no one will challenge them.

Even if he had a challenger I would recommend for Coroner, Dr. LeRoy L. Schroeder. He was my Doctor in the later years I lived in Findlay and I was in the same Scout Troop as his son Kevin. He is a nice guy who supports his community and does a job that not many would do.

If you do live in Hancock County and want more election info check out these links:

http://www.hancockboardofelections.com/
http://www.co.hancock.oh.us/

Originally posted on the blog “Hancock County Politics Unfiltered”

Bush has edge in final NY Times poll even though it shows he has done a bad job overall

Today is the last day of the long 2004 Election season. Living in a “battleground” state has been interesting and tiring. Each of the Presidential candidates kept coming around about once a week for months. Each seems that neither want to let the other have the last visit as if that will matter.

I really feel that most who plan on voting have decided and are ready to draw the curtain in their booth.

I really doubt that a winner will be declared on Tuesday evening. We will have an idea who has the advantage but after the crap we went through in 2000, there will be probably a few weeks as each party tries to manage the problem votes toward their candidate through the court system.

The New York Times published their final poll Monday. If you read the detailed results (available as a PDF file on their website) it is strange. Of likely voters on November 2nd, a slim majority would vote for George Bush. (49 % for Bush and 46% for Kerry). Yet when reading the other questions Bush gets bad marks on handling the war in Iraq, the economy, job creation, and most feel the country is on the wrong track. Yet Bush would get their vote. Why? Because of the campaign against terrorism. Bush actually got good marks on that and people feel he would continue to do a good job although in another question people said the administration mucked things up and didn’t plan the Iraq invasion it well enough. Most thought that was a major part of the campaign against terrorism.

The only bad mark Kerry got was that people felt he said what people wanted to hear rather than what he truly believes. Other than that the respondents had good feelings about Kerry but they won’t vote for him.

The demographics of the sample was they were mostly white, republican, between 45 and 64, and had some college.

I’m not an expert but even though the sample would vote for Bush over Kerry because of one issue, I think the results show Kerry has the advantage. If voters balance their fears with the reason they are voting in the first place, Kerry could come out on top. You vote to pass judgement on how the current occupant of the White House is doing his/her job overall.

The poll results show that the sample would fail Bush on that overall evaluation. And THAT is how we should vote on November 2nd.