Babylon Rising

I have found a few quotes that I think may be of interest to DUers, regarding how the religious belief system of the neoconservative Christians may effect the Bush-Cheney policy as the tension with Iran increases. My goal is not to begin a discussion about religion: I think that it is fair to say that most progressive democrats are able to identify the distinctions between Martin Luther King, Jr and Jerry Falwell.

It is worth noting that, when King was busy in Selma, Rev. Falwell declared, "I must personally say that I do question the sincerity and non-violent intentions of some civil rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mr. James Farmer, and others, who are known to have left-wing associations." (From Jerry's 3-21-65 sermon, "Ministers and Marches," delivered to his Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia.)

To be fair, I should note that while I did not know King, I had the opportunity to get to know James Farmer somewhat, and I never found him as suspect as I do Jerry Falwell. I think that Farmer's goal was for America to become a nation where the Constitution would apply to all people, regardless of sex, race, or religion, which simply means "democracy." I think that people like Falwell find "democracy" to be a threatening prosepect.

In "American Dynasty," Kevin Phillips notes the same thing when he quotes one of the US Supreme Court Justices: "Part of Scalia's objection to democracy, amplified a year later, was that it got in the way of a return to an eighteenth-century interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Speaking at the January 2002 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, he opined that as written in 1787 the Constitution reflected natural or divinely inspired law that the state was an instrument of God. 'That consensus has been upset,' he said, 'by the emergence of democracy.' He added that 'the reactions of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it but resolution to combat it as effectively as possible.'" (pages 107-8)

Certainly, Justice Scalia did his best to fight democracy in 2000, and to install by the divine authority a man who shared his belief system as president. This belief system is shared by others, including Donald Rumsfeld and a close friend he talked out of a planned retirement a few years back, Lieutenant General William Boykin. On page 227 of "Chain of Command," Seymour Hersh notes, "In October 2003, the Los Angeles Times reported that Boykin, while giving Sunday-morning talks in uniform to church groups, had repeatedly equated the Muslim world with Satan. The previous June, according to the paper, he told a congregation in Oregon that "Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army.' Boykin praised President Bush as a 'man who prays in the Oval Office,' and declared that Bush was 'not elected' President but 'appointed by God.' The Muslim world hates America, he said, 'because we are a nations of believers.'"

I think we agree that Bush was not elected. However, in "Imperial Hubris," Michael Scheuer points out to us a few other reasons the Muslim world may have concerns about the Bush administration: "Parenthetically, Muslims' passionate love and reverence for God and His prophet may explain the great importance they attach to negative remarks by U.S. Protestant clerics about Islam and the Prophet, especially by clerics publicly associated to serving administrations. Clerical comments most U.S. citizens disregard are taken as threatening by Muslims because their societal frame of reference is one in which there is no separation of church and state. Thus, words of little consequence in U.S. politics and society are heard and remembered in the Islamic world as threats and blasphemy, earning America increased Muslim hatred. When Pat Robertson says, "Adolph Hitler is bad, but what Muslims do to Jews is worse"; the Reverend Jerry Falwell refers to the Prophet as a 'terrorist'; Jimmy Swaggart prays that 'God blesses those who bless Israel and damns those who damn it"; and the Reverend Franklin Graham calls Islam a 'wicked religion' and says Christianity and Islam are 'different as lightness and darkness,' Muslims believe that '(n)ever has Islam faced such a frantic campaign of insults for centuries.'" (pages 2-3)

Again, my goal is not to discuss religion. When we discuss our thoughts and beliefs on that topic, we are too likely to highlight disagreements, and to be at risk of having hard feelings divide some groups within the progressive democratic movement. Instead, I am hoping that we can put any minor differences we have behind us, and to concentrate on a common threat we face. For the republican right's belief system, which finds King and Farmer "dangerous," and which finds both democracy and Islam a threat to "divine authority" is surely a diseased thinking that increases the likelihood of a conflict between the USA and Iran.

Babylon is rising. Let's find a common language to communicate our opposition to war.

I figured it out: people think that I will evaporate and leave no water stains on DU if they ignore the threads I post here, eh? Sorry, it will not work! You're stuck with me. Jerry Falwell might say "cursed"!

Your posts are so chocked full of info that some of us have to run to catch up. :hug:

I posted something this morning on GD about how there's one more check and balance if Alito gets on the court -- impeachment.

It totally sank and vanished, and I can't help but feel somewhat disgruntled about it. When you look at these huge long threads in the Lounge about what to name your pet cockroach, etc..... it's frustrating.

I was under the impression that some changes were going to be made to DU:GD, which might provide more structure so that posts like yours from this morning would not get lost in some of the other posts that are becoming more common on this part of DU. I hope that it happens soon.

I'm not surprised by the recent group of "I'm leaving DU..." or "I'll hold my breath if Alito is confirmed..." threads. However, I think that people might want to consider that DU allows us the opportunity to discuss issues of substance, which could prove of great value in promoting progressive democratic activities.

Forgive my amatuer psyco-analysis. I lurked here for over a year before joining, and I have observed these mood shifts in this place when current events are either frustrating (Alito) or empowering (Fitz indictments). GD is in a funk right now.

how to respond. It takes a lot of brain power to keep up with you!

thanks for this; you're one of the few I go out of my way to read on DU, even when we disagree...

a religious crusade, sorry - I know you aren't trying to talk about religion.

Whether the leaders are using this framework as a way to manipulate the RW christians, or whether they really believe that this is all part of the end times, I don't know.

But it sure is a convenient framework, and it simmplifies everything. It's terrifying.

I am not afraid to invoke religion/spirituality as a way to speak against this war. But that's because I have no bitterness toward religion, and I can speak of it comfortably. Many people can't though, and I don't know how to get past that.

Saying that isn't starting a religious war on DU .... which is what I wanted to avoid. Rather, it is an accurate description of the thinking of those who identify an "axis of evil" that looks a lot like the Islamic world ... until they tossed North Korea in, just for the heck of it. But I'll be damned (not in the sense Falwell would damn me), but it seems like a conflict between cultures to me.

whenever you write anything on DU. Your posts are always profound. My son gave me a book yesterday, for my Birthday, titled "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. Have you read it yet? I'm just starting it, but I find it difficult to tear myself away from DU on the weekends, always hoping to read some GOOD NEWS !! I know, I'm a "cockeyed optomist"!! Once I get into the book I'm sure I won't be able to put it down. Do you have a view on this book and author? It seems like "someone" is trying to tell me something because so far this book seems to fall in line with your thoughts! DC

I haven't read it, yet, but am hoping to get to a good book store soon. I had thought I'd have an opportunity to earlier this month, but it hasn't happened yet. I need to stock up on a good pile of books soon, though, because that is about all I do in the bitter weeks during the winter season.

I will look for it, and hope you will tell me what you like about it.

and the way he gets to is quite a remarkable peice of writing

Many people portray him as atheist because he advocates against religions, and builds quite a case against organized religions to the point of predicting we must abandon them, if our civilized world is to survive.

But he is actually spiritual and a philosophical neuroscientist. He meditates and is into Buddhism

From 'the Raving Atheist'

An Interview with Sam Harris"

~snip~

"Sam Harris is no friend of religion. In The End of Faith, he openly mocks god-belief as primitive superstition and condemns it as a threat to human survival. Harris argues that the great modern religions belong on "the scrap heap of mythology," and his zero-tolerance policy applies to religious fundamentalists and moderates alike.

Some reviewers were surprised, therefore, to discover that Harris -- who received a philosophy degree from Stanford University and is a doctoral candidate in the field of neuroscience -- embraces Eastern philosophy and Buddhism. Particularly baffling to some was the declaration, on the concluding page of his book, that "mysticism is a rational enterprise." After a reader lamented this apparent contradiction in a comment at this blog, Harris offered to engage me in a written dialogue to clarify his stance on the scientific validity of studying spiritual experience.

~snip~

http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2004/11/interview_with_sam_harris_part_1.php

Try to keep an open mind.

Exodus: Movement of Jah people! Oh-oh-oh, yea-eah!
.......
Men and people will fight ya down (Tell me why!)
When ya see Jah light. (Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!)
Let me tell you if you're not wrong; (Then, why?)
Everything is all right.
So we gonna walk - all right! - through de roads of creation:
We the generation (Tell me why!)
(Trod through great tribulation) trod through great tribulation.

Exodus, all right! Movement of Jah people!
Oh, yeah! O-oo, yeah! All right!
Exodus: Movement of Jah people! Oh, yeah!

Yeah-yeah-yeah, well!
Uh! Open your eyes and look within:
Are you satisfied (with the life you're living)? Uh!
We know where we're going, uh!
We know where we're from.
We're leaving Babylon,
We're going to our Father land.

BANDULU: bandit, criminal, one living by guile
BANDULU BIZNESS is a racket, a swindle


BOASIN TONE: Swollen penis or testicles


CUT YAI: to cut your eye at somebody is a very common means of expressing scorn or contempt


NUH? "Is it not so?"

SEEN?: Do you understand?

YA NO SEE IT?: you know?

MORE TIME: see you later

I DAWTA H2O Man: I sister H2O Man

ONE LOVE: a parting phrase, expression of unity

JAH BLESS

"I should print it and tack it on the wall." It is very valuable in helping to understand. Gonna print it for husband to read.

Thank you.

Your posts are consistently profound.
I will be pondering on this one for some time!
Thanks Again!

recommend a thread, but I thought this one was worth giving it a try.
Thank-you for your good words.

I'm not sure he knows the answer.


Excellent post, especially for a Sunday.

could answer that. He seems pretty detached from the meaning of the Constitution.

It's always a lot to digest and read thru - they are well thought out and never short.

Interesting point of view.

But for someone not wanting to discuss religion, I think you have fallen head first into it, notwithstanding!

I think that there are times when it's wonderful for people to share their beliefs, be they based on religion, science, a combination, or a lack thereof. That's one reason that I venture to the religious forum on DU from time to time.

But there are other times when it would seem to be to our advantage to discuss the influence of the republican right-wing "religion" in a context similar to what we might find were we in a political science or sociology class at a local community college. The goal in that setting isn't to survey the classroom for personal opinions or beliefs per say, but rather to discuss how the belief system of a specific group -- in this case the neocons in the Bush administration -- impact the political process.

An advantage of this is that it can help us to understand some of the factors that are pushing our nation towards a confrontation in the Middle East that may not be in anyone's best interests.

that leaves religious dogma & divisons behind.

I am quite persuaded by Sam Harris in "the End of Faith" that unless the human race
moves toward the idea of a secular world community we are almost certainly doomed.

Babylon has risen and fallen and will keep on doing so until we finally leave it and build
toward that commonality that exists in all people, to live by moral standards and ethical values
as one race - the human race.

A broad community based on the universal human values common to all religions, spiritual movements & philosophies--truth, right action, peace, selfless love & non-violence. SG

Thanks for taking the time & effort. First time I've heard these quotes from Scalia, although I'm not surprised. He's one scary judge! SG

I don't know why the so called divinity heads in this administration tend to look back in place of forward for the advancement of civilization. Its a curious anomoly as near as I can tell. I think that they tend to rely on religiousity as a form of rationalization as opposed to Muslims whose culture and religion more clearly support one another. I shake my head and wonder how these aged Nixonians still manage to believe that the US will follow suit utilizing Christianity.

Before liberal ideas, politicians and the like, US citizens who advocate for a religious basis for civilization are the victims of the very thing that has made them profitable--namely Science.

If this off base-sorry, but these are the thoughts I've been having.

in a "conflict-leads-to-God's-intervention" as these neoconservative Christians are, almost always take actions that are "high risk." They do things in a confrontational manner, that would not make sense in any other context but that they are either consciously or unconsciously attempting to "force God's hand." In a very real sense, what we see happening within a certain sub-group in this administration is like a Jamestown mentality.

Thus, we have a number of rational DUers who say there are five good reasons that the US will not take steps that will result in a military conflict with Iran .... and if one were to view the situation entirely in logical terms, these DUers make sense. Yet there is a factor being overlooked: many of the people who are in seats of power have a belief system that assures them that the cosmic conflict they have "learned" about in church and the bible is "NOW." And they are willing to risk anything to set "God's plan" in motion.

In my opinion, that is the most dangerous aspect of the conflict with Iran.

because they really don't get it. For people of such great 'faith' they are full of fear. What they don't realize is that anyone who would worked toward bringing about the 'end of the world' certainly isn't getting into heaven any time soon.

Some say it is because they view anyone or everyone as a threat to their survival, thereby rationalizing their actions to kill or to be violent. Others postulate that sociopaths are drawn to the very issue they are blind to and that is the lack of life they have in their own humanity. There are even some who suppose that for sociopaths, violence is the only way they feel anything or that it is the way to belong to a human race they see as like them.

As I read your post and those of others, I was watching a Discovery channel program on sharks. It would seem that despite superb survival skills attained over hundreds of years, they lack the ability to distinguish animal from human. They attack whatever they believe to a threat, territorial, vicious, and without conscience. No one doubts we will not eat the shark's food from the water, but somehow the shark does.

Sharks may be a fact of nature, in the same way that sociopaths are fact of humanity. Yet one wonders, how is it that some humans evolve despite the threats that nature places before us and others don't. Can the shark even begin to evolve any further? Maybe not. Maybe it is the perfect instrument for what it is drawn by nature to do--eat and survive.

And maybe, the neocon's believe themselves to be the same, albiet utilizing the crude belief in the hereafter as its survival, and the vulnerable as their food.

All I know is that they approach each threat to their humanity as the shark does, territorial, vicious, and without conscience.

You say "Thus, we have a number of rational DUers who say there are five good reasons that the US will not take steps that will result in a military conflict with Iran .... and if one were to view the situation entirely in logical terms, these DUers make sense. Yet there is a factor being overlooked: many of the people who are in seats of power have a belief system that assures them that the cosmic conflict they have "learned" about in church and the bible is "NOW." And they are willing to risk anything to set "God's plan" in motion."

Rational discussion with religious fanatics does not work. Once religious zealotry is thrown in, positions once deemed untenable become not only acceptable, but inevitable. The U.S. is under the control of an unholy alliance between corporate greed and religious fanaticism. I believe that the ration reasons some of us use to make ourselves believe that Bush will not declare war on Iran, are reasons that he will brush aside as merely "unpatriotic", or disloyal. He is capable of ANYTHING, regardless of how destructive it might be.

Bush "believing that he is John the Baptist" (incarnate) is preparing the way for the return of the Messiah. Little does he realize that the Creator does things IN HIS OWN TIME !! If he and his "neo-cons want a ONE WORLD RELIGION, why isn't he intelligent enough to realize that, when the Messiah does return, He will be in charge, and it will be this way, without their help!! It's the Creators job to create the "new world order" not theirs, therefore they are usurping God's authority. Wonder how He feels about that!! It's been really hard to be a Christian since 2000. I have to keep reminding myself to keep my eyes on God and not man. There have been times when I was ashamed to be "lumped into" what this Nation has come to consider being a Christian, means nowadays!!:cry: DC P.S. (on edit) What ever happened to the Creators instruction to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's"

Its not as if Bush would choose a lesser Saint for himself. No, he would have to choose one who is both strong and weak, a martyr and a leader, and obviously whomever he thinks would bring him closer to power. One wonders if John the Baptist would choose George Bush as his role model, however. :)

As mentioned in post #12. And as you observed, the Muslim religion and culture seem to more clearly support one another. People fear what they do not understand. Westerners (myself included) have a very limited understanding of Muslim culture. And a typical incuriousity about it as well. I certainly feel they are more curious about our culture than we are of theirs. We get a view of Muslim culture that is represented by the most extreme elements of their culture/religion from (what else?) TV...Even though we have many Muslims living amongst us, here in the U.S. They just don't act like the crazed Jihadists we get a dosed with on TV.

Edit for spelling

So, it becomes easy for the crazed Jihadists in the West to frame the conflict strictly in religous terms, using perceived differences in religious beliefs (which are really mainly cultural differences) to feed fears.

That women tend to focus on how we are similar rather than how we are different.
Yes?

to rely on the female or the female role as a way to justify their actions or inaction. I think it is symbolic of what is in common with all members of all species--namely survival. Women have a better civilizing force on societies but only after or when they feel the young are in jeopardy. Then, and it always takes time, watch out.

Random thoughts...

to come forward first, was always in the cards.

They are amassing, slowly. The Katrina debacle, the hurricane victims of Pakistan, and the hidden women in N. Korea. Coming....building....slowly....

Would we even be discussing Babylon Rising if Geena Davis really were Commander In Chief?

In some ways, better, but men do have a point--women are often relentless. There are some female leaders who have been accused of being vicious but I think that most acquit themselves well when it comes to taking care of their populace. The last known female leader who could be considered a conquerer would have been Queen Victoria who certainly dominated the globe. But comparisons to other western conquerers such as Napolean or Ceasar are easily understood to be militaristic. Maggie Thatcher liked to fancy herself as a leader, but she was no conquerer. Her militaristic style was to soldier up the British troops as one would order up a menu.

Exactly. What will the name be I wonder. Will It be Terri, Cindy, Katrina, all who have chipped off a bit, or, a noc, women who dress in pink, a scorned girlfriend who goes to the feds or a combination of all of them?

Look what a mess Henry VIII's wives made for him. :) Men have always underestimated women, at least super ego men have. Perhaps we'll settle on Helen.....

Immigrants have been assimilated in the melting pot.

comments by General Boykins that excites the fire of hatred with comments like, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."
A General is a leader, a man to be look up to by the young troops willing to die for their country.

And Pat Robertson brings to mind his style of energizing the rage.
Did the United Sates enter the war because of its indignation at Hitler's treatment of the Jews, Mr Robertson? In 1934 Hitler had been in power for a year and his campaign against the Jews were going full blast. Also in 1934 a resolution was introduced into the Senate expressing their concern at what Germany was doing, and asked for a restoration of Jewish rights. The State Department used its influence to get the resolution buried in committee.

Our commonality should be the truth and if we keep letting the opposition paint pictures of their agenda, surely then, we are the losers.
Babylon is rising

based on faith and not rational judgement, we are in trouble. This is what we are seeing today and it disgusts me. I am not sure how we got here or even why so many seem to support these people who are no more religious than Osama Bin Forgotten.

That all the talk shows this morning had the same theme, "what's wrong with the dems" or some version thereof. There have been a lot of charges against the dems recently for not standing up and I admit to being one who has been frustrated with the party. But watching the shows this morning it struck me it's somewhat a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. The message is so tightly controlled right now that the dems either don't get a hearing or, the facts are twisted. Just as the WaPo ombudsman did regarding whether or not the dems got money from Abramoff. And looking at it I began to think, "they're afraid". And I think they are, most of them. Some are just turn coats. But I think the majority are caught in a web and are afraid. They need to find a way conquer their fear, as MLK did and stop being afraid of speaking the truth. Stop equivocating, doing the dance, being discreet. For what they also need to realize is what he did, in times such as these, "Silence is betrayal".

Reading what Scalia, Boykin and the rest have to say, what I notice they all have in common is that they have united behind our pResident not just ideologically but philosophically. Specifically, they are united in seeing the world through the prism of a black/white dichotomy that the pResident spelled out when he said, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror". It's the two-sided philosophy where there is only right or wrong, good or evil, lightness or darkness. There is no in between.

I think here on DU, most progressives acknowledge that this worldview is overly simplistic, and believing it dogmatically leads you to demonize anyone in opposition to your views. It's very important to find a common language or we run the risk of falling into the trap, to quote Barbara Lee, that we "become the evil we deplore". We should reserve that demonization for the war itself. Our tactics toward those who support the war should not be attacking them, but rather passive resistance through vigilant education. The more people are informed of the facts of this war, the less they are likely to support it. Look how public opinion polls have shifted. Look at the reversal of opinion from the Freedom Fries Representative. The truth is on our side.

Instead of a black/white view, we need a shades of gray view, that there are more than two sides to an argument. Taking this philosophical view should keep us from falling into the trap of being as closed-minded as those of the fundamentalist persuasion tend to be. Hopefully, I'm not overgeneralizing the situation and my approach is realistic.

you have given me much to think about.

I'll reply more fully after I have formulated a response worthy of your post. :hi:

when he says he wants justices that strictly interrupt the constitution? Well now, I guess a theocracy would be a fairly simple way to establish a dictatorship!

"...diseased thinking that increases the likelihood of a conflict between the USA and Iran." Indeed Water Man.

Nice post!

between various groups & backhands any common connections, chaos tends to flourish. Christians & Muslims have the entire Old Testament in common(with a few editorial differences). RB, the root word for both Arabs & Rabbis-if you can't see the obvious there I can't help you. Divide & conquer, as usual, is the Republican Way. It's horrible that American generals are infected with the madness too. Common connections is the way to go, win-win situations forcefully pushed, in the Mid-East-that is the only way to get stability. But then $1 Billion per week billed to the taxpayers wouldn't be happening.

You raise an interesting point, one that is raised in a similar way in a book I'm reading today. Vine Deloria, Jr, addresses the significance of environment on religious experience in "God Is Red." He notes that, "A corollary of this concept is the possibility that each land projects a particular religious spirit, which largely determines what type of religious beliefs will arise on it. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity do not radically differ about the nature of creation and the final days, when even nature is to be renewed. Arising as they did from the desert of the Middle East, it may be that concern with a renewal of that particular land has preformed their religious conceptions." (pages 294-5)

A few years ago, I interviewed Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman in the last of a 4-part series. It was shortly after 9-11, and I asked him a number of questions that involved the Middle East. Among them was a question about the need to create a homeland for Palestinians. I remember Chief Waterman saying that there is already plenty of land for the different tribes, or extended families, in the Middle East, but that fighting over control of the resources that produce "wealth" was at the root of the "religious wars" there.

I ask myself, what are the benefits of religion to a tribe. Social cohesion and a shared worldview.. something to unite unrelated families..and a rallying point against rivals... and comfort against fear of the 'other'

in more cosmopolitan societies.. with greater numbers of different kind of people.. more familiarity, less fear.. less sociological need for religion.. more secular place.

last remaining need for religion, comfort against fear of a death of isolation.

(streaming consciousness here)

among the most fearful, most isolated "tribes"

and spokesperson for The Interfaith Alliance, which is a group of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Athiests and Agnostics, who have joined together to try to combat the influence of the neocon-rabid right Christians in Washington, DC.

The group attempts to: promote democratic values; defend religious liberty; challenge hatred and religious bigotry; and reinvigorate informed civic participation. For more information, see:

www.interfaithalliance.org

In their mailings, they use some quotes from people like Jerry Falwell and Randal Terry to illustrate the thinking and activities of the religious right-wing republicans.

:patriot: