The raging sins of the persecution industry: Unpacking the hypocrisy at the heart of the Religious Right
“Hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
— Matthew 7:5
I thought after gay marriage was legalized nationwide by the Supreme Court that we might get a well-deserved break from the “culture wars," but oh, how wrong I’ve been. Instead, it’s open season on anyone who threatens Christian hegemony. Recently, Bill O’Reilly, the meanest, angriest and most unholy bastard who has ever made a living by screaming at strangers, claimed that “secularism" is responsible for mass murder in America. O’Reilly glosses over the fact that religious wars have dominated human history, but if you need something more current, statistics show that 7 percent of the general population self-identifies as agnostic or atheist, while less than 1 percent of the prison population identifies as such. We don’t commit crimes on the scale that religious people do.
The raging sins of the persecution industry: Unpacking the hypocrisy at the heart of the Religious Right “Hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." — Matthew 7:5 I thought after gay marriage was legalized nationwide by the Supreme Court that we might get a well-deserved break from the “culture wars," but oh, how wrong I’ve been. Instead, it’s open season on anyone who threatens Christian hegemony. Recently, Bill O’Reilly, the meanest, angriest and most unholy bastard who has ever made a living by screaming at strangers, claimed that “secularism" is responsible for mass murder in America. O’Reilly glosses over the fact that religious wars have dominated human history, but if you need something more current, statistics show that 7 percent of the general population self-identifies as agnostic or atheist, while less than 1 percent of the prison population identifies as such. We don’t commit crimes on the scale that religious people do. http://www.salon.com/2015/09/14/the_raging_sins_of_the_persecution_industry_unpacking_the_hypocrisy_at_the_heart_of_the_religious_right/By quoting facts and figures you miss the point entirely. The Right wing legitimately believes propaganda is an effective tool. And if you present facts to disprove them, they'll question the source of those facts. It's a lose lose situation.
But is it wonder? The religious right are fundamentalist and prejudiced against all other morals standards, other than their own, which is based on “what they have been taught” scripture teaches. This is true of all religious zealotry and results in a “holier than thou” attitude. IOW, moral hubris and prejudice against alternative secular moral behavior. Interestingly this is one of the sins warned against in the bible.
The very exclusivity of religious (even those based on the same story of Creation), results in prejudice against anything different. So from their schewed viewpoint, anything which is in conflict with their “divine” law, is an attack on the Sacred Word, which must be defended at all costs.
IMO, due to the ambiguity of the “Establishment Clause”, I suggest a Constitutional Amendment, defining the fact that public servants are prohibited from applying personal religious views when engaged in legal application of secular law in "Matters of State.
As I understand it, that was the very intent of the clause, to prevent undue influence of church in matters of state.
This is my all-time favorite presentation of George Carlin. George Carlin --- Religion is Bullshit - YouTube
Write4U,
Which is the more Christian country today, Russia or the United States?
Didn’t Russia sort of had the Constitutional Amendment power that prohibited religious views in State matters? And how well did that work out?
Point being, there are many laws already on the books that are not being enforced. Enforcement and funding are the political and populous part of the laws. And many of the fixes for today’s problems are right in front of us. Yet, will not be applied do to the human factor. The religious people have blind faith. The atheists are using mostly establishment science. The atheist movement has yet to take a step forward. So what is stopping the Blind Faith movement? Bitching and not understanding what makes an economy system operate and put food on the table and warmth in the house does not help. Everybody likes to eat the fried chicken, but nobody wants to kill and clean the chicken.
I think you are thinking in the right direction, but it is not the scriptures that are the problem. That is like saying the gun kills people. When it is people who kill people. Taking the guns away will not stop the killings.
Write4U, ... That is like saying the gun kills people. When it is people who kill people. Taking the guns away will not stop the killings.TANGENT. I hate when people say that. Of COURSE taking away the guns will stop people from killing others with guns. I can prove it: How many people were mowed down because of a civilian driving a tank through a crowded place in the US? Answer: None. Reason: Civilians don't have tanks.
Write4U, ... That is like saying the gun kills people. When it is people who kill people. Taking the guns away will not stop the killings.TANGENT. I hate when people say that. Of COURSE taking away the guns will stop people from killing others with guns. I can prove it: How many people were mowed down because of a civilian driving a tank through a crowded place in the US? Answer: None. Reason: Civilians don't have tanks. Read the post, did not say it wouldn’t stop the killing of people with guns. I said it would not stop the killing of people. If you think that taking guns away will stop people from killing people. I disagree. That is the same type of thinking that was used on the War on Drugs. Thirty years of stopping the flow of drugs has only changed the method of flow, nothing more.
Write4U, ... That is like saying the gun kills people. When it is people who kill people. Taking the guns away will not stop the killings.TANGENT. I hate when people say that. Of COURSE taking away the guns will stop people from killing others with guns. I can prove it: How many people were mowed down because of a civilian driving a tank through a crowded place in the US? Answer: None. Reason: Civilians don't have tanks. Read the post, did not say it wouldn’t stop the killing of people with guns. I said it would not stop the killing of people. If you think that taking guns away will stop people from killing people. I disagree. That is the same type of thinking that was used on the War on Drugs. Thirty years of stopping the flow of drugs has only changed the method of flow, nothing more.Well then your statement is just plain dumb. Of course there will always be murder. But by taking away guns we can take away one of the main ways murder is committed.
Write4U, Which is the more Christian country today, Russia or the United States? Didn’t Russia sort of had the Constitutional Amendment power that prohibited religious views in State matters? And how well did that work out? Point being, there are many laws already on the books that are not being enforced. Enforcement and funding are the political and populous part of the laws. And many of the fixes for today’s problems are right in front of us. Yet, will not be applied do to the human factor. The religious people have blind faith. The atheists are using mostly establishment science. The atheist movement has yet to take a step forward. So what is stopping the Blind Faith movement? Bitching and not understanding what makes an economy system operate and put food on the table and warmth in the house does not help. Everybody likes to eat the fried chicken, but nobody wants to kill and clean the chicken. I think you are thinking in the right direction, but it is not the scriptures that are the problem. That is like saying the gun kills people. When it is people who kill people. Taking the guns away will not stop the killings.False analogy. These wars were fought for very different objectives. But if we want to use the gun example, I wish people would throw scriptures at each other instead of hacking off heads or gunning down other "good and pious" people "in the name of God". I have never heard anyone say, "lets go kill a few people "in the name of the almighty Gun", halleluja!.
Write4U, ... That is like saying the gun kills people. When it is people who kill people. Taking the guns away will not stop the killings.TANGENT. I hate when people say that. Of COURSE taking away the guns will stop people from killing others with guns. I can prove it: How many people were mowed down because of a civilian driving a tank through a crowded place in the US? Answer: None. Reason: Civilians don't have tanks. Read the post, did not say it wouldn’t stop the killing of people with guns. I said it would not stop the killing of people. If you think that taking guns away will stop people from killing people. I disagree. That is the same type of thinking that was used on the War on Drugs. Thirty years of stopping the flow of drugs has only changed the method of flow, nothing more. Take away religion and people will stop killing each other in the name of Religion. Difference. There used to be a saying that "Rock-n-Roll" was the opiate of the masses. I submit religion is the opiate of the masses.
The idea of religion being the opiate of the masses predates rock n roll. Marx and Engels described it as such in the Communist Manifesto.
The idea of religion being the opiate of the masses predates rock n roll. Marx and Engels described it as such in the Communist Manifesto.I am sorry to be in such company, but in that respect I believe it was truth. The difference is that I don't care if they want to kill each other over religion, as long as they leave me out of it. I don't subscribe to killing in order to resolve philosophical conflicts. Seems a little barbaric to me. But maybe its just the law and function of "Natural Selection" at work. It has also been around since the Beginning (Creation). Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with individual freedom to exercise their beliefs. As long as they are not in conflict with a priori secular law, anyone can express and vote their concience. What you are not allowed, is to refuse to execute a lawful State document, based on "personal" prejudicial beliefs. That introduces Theocracy and Prejudice..
The idea of religion being the opiate of the masses predates rock n roll. Marx and Engels described it as such in the Communist Manifesto.I am sorry to be in such company, but in that respect I believe it was truth. The difference is that I don't care if they want to kill each other over religion, as long as they leave me out of it. I don't subscribe to killing in order to resolve philosophical conflicts. Seems a little barbaric to me. But maybe its just the law and function of "Natural Selection" at work. It has also been around since the Beginning (Creation). I'm not prepared for a complete analysis, but I'll just say that Marx didn't really work through his treatise on religion. His "opiate" quote is famous, but there isn't much substance behind it. I think a better case can be made that all philosophies can be used in the service of politics. Here I'm defining philosophy as anything that is not provable or at least not yet proven, that doesn't have solid data, that relies on speculation. Marx just didn't like the politics that came out of the religions he experienced, and saw the followers of it as zombies, following blindly. He had a point, but that can be said of a lot of things, not just religion.
Write4U, ... That is like saying the gun kills people. When it is people who kill people. Taking the guns away will not stop the killings.TANGENT. I hate when people say that. Of COURSE taking away the guns will stop people from killing others with guns. I can prove it: How many people were mowed down because of a civilian driving a tank through a crowded place in the US? Answer: None. Reason: Civilians don't have tanks. Read the post, did not say it wouldn’t stop the killing of people with guns. I said it would not stop the killing of people. If you think that taking guns away will stop people from killing people. I disagree. That is the same type of thinking that was used on the War on Drugs. Thirty years of stopping the flow of drugs has only changed the method of flow, nothing more.Well then your statement is just plain dumb. Of course there will always be murder. But by taking away guns we can take away one of the main ways murder is committed.My thought was complete. Your thought was only a half of a thought. Ok, you take away the guns. It doesn’t stop the murders. So, what is going to replace the guns? What is going to be the cost on society with the new murder methods? The example of the War on Drugs brought us the cartels. Operation Green that shut down the Mexican Border, just created Asian gangs and open up the Canada border. It took four years for the Mexican flow to reestablish. Resulting in a bigger problem. Operation Green was a total disaster. Reason, no common sense on what the real problems are. Just like the guns.
Write4U, ... That is like saying the gun kills people. When it is people who kill people. Taking the guns away will not stop the killings.TANGENT. I hate when people say that. Of COURSE taking away the guns will stop people from killing others with guns. I can prove it: How many people were mowed down because of a civilian driving a tank through a crowded place in the US? Answer: None. Reason: Civilians don't have tanks. Read the post, did not say it wouldn’t stop the killing of people with guns. I said it would not stop the killing of people. If you think that taking guns away will stop people from killing people. I disagree. That is the same type of thinking that was used on the War on Drugs. Thirty years of stopping the flow of drugs has only changed the method of flow, nothing more.Well then your statement is just plain dumb. Of course there will always be murder. But by taking away guns we can take away one of the main ways murder is committed.My thought was complete. Your thought was only a half of a thought. Ok, you take away the guns. It doesn’t stop the murders. So, what is going to replace the guns? What is going to be the cost on society with the new murder methods? The example of the War on Drugs brought us the cartels. Operation Green that shut down the Mexican Border, just created Asian gangs and open up the Canada border. It took four years for the Mexican flow to reestablish. Resulting in a bigger problem. Operation Green was a total disaster. Reason, no common sense on what the real problems are. Just like the guns.Well yes, actions have consequences. My comment was strictly about gun violence. What I think you're missing is that yes there is an underlying cause. BUT without guns at least the reaction against that cause will be less fatal...for (silly) example the beligerent cheating husband might only get stabbed a few times versus getting killed.
Well yes, actions have consequences. My comment was strictly about gun violence. What I think you're missing is that yes there is an underlying cause. BUT without guns at least the reaction against that cause will be less fatal...for (silly) example the beligerent cheating husband might only get stabbed a few times versus getting killed.I am not worried about knives replacing guns. More worried about poisons, virus, electrical and magnetic weapons of the future. Think of a magnetic gun that shoots atoms that can kill or disable and leaves no trace or a light that can blind. In the news last week a guy is now making and selling a small flame thrower for street use. I do think that automatic and large caliber firearms should be band as they are weapons of war. People don't buy weapons to hunt for the next meal. They buy them to feel safe. Does a person feel safer with a knife or gun?
... That is like saying the gun kills people. When it is people who kill people. Taking the guns away will not stop the killings.TANGENT. I hate when people say that. Of COURSE taking away the guns will stop people from killing others with guns. I can prove it: How many people were mowed down because of a civilian driving a tank through a crowded place in the US? Answer: None. Reason: Civilians don't have tanks. Read the post, did not say it wouldn’t stop the killing of people with guns. I said it would not stop the killing of people. If you think that taking guns away will stop people from killing people. I disagree. That is the same type of thinking that was used on the War on Drugs. Thirty years of stopping the flow of drugs has only changed the method of flow, nothing more.Well then your statement is just plain dumb. Of course there will always be murder. But by taking away guns we can take away one of the main ways murder is committed.My thought was complete. Your thought was only a half of a thought. Ok, you take away the guns. It doesn’t stop the murders. So, what is going to replace the guns? What is going to be the cost on society with the new murder methods? The example of the War on Drugs brought us the cartels. Operation Green that shut down the Mexican Border, just created Asian gangs and open up the Canada border. It took four years for the Mexican flow to reestablish. Resulting in a bigger problem. Operation Green was a total disaster. Reason, no common sense on what the real problems are. Just like the guns.Well yes, actions have consequences. My comment was strictly about gun violence. What I think you're missing is that yes there is an underlying cause. BUT without guns at least the reaction against that cause will be less fatal...for (silly) example the beligerent cheating husband might only get stabbed a few times versus getting killed. I agree with that. There is a world of difference between a knife and a sub-machine gun. Even an expert in knife throwing would lose his knife in the process, whereas a sub-machine gun can wipe out 30 people in a few seconds at any distance AND can be reloaded for more of the same. A knife is fundamentally a utility tool, while a gun is specifically designed for killing things at great distance. It is a weapon of war (hunting is war). What can possibly be the argument against background checks for mental stability and gun safety. If I want to drive a car, I have to go through a written test as well as demonstration of driving ability. But today it is "you want to bay a gun? What would you like, an air pistol or 357 magnum?" It's all the same according to the law.
Write4U, Which is the more Christian country today, Russia or the United States? Didn’t Russia sort of had the Constitutional Amendment power that prohibited religious views in State matters? And how well did that work out? Point being, there are many laws already on the books that are not being enforced. Enforcement and funding are the political and populous part of the laws. And many of the fixes for today’s problems are right in front of us. Yet, will not be applied do to the human factor. The religious people have blind faith. The atheists are using mostly establishment science. The atheist movement has yet to take a step forward. So what is stopping the Blind Faith movement? Bitching and not understanding what makes an economy system operate and put food on the table and warmth in the house does not help. Everybody likes to eat the fried chicken, but nobody wants to kill and clean the chicken. I think you are thinking in the right direction, but it is not the scriptures that are the problem. That is like saying the gun kills people. When it is people who kill people. Taking the guns away will not stop the killings.Why? Countries with fewer guns have fewer killings. Is it Just a coincidence? LL
Write4U, Which is the more Christian country today, Russia or the United States? Didn’t Russia sort of had the Constitutional Amendment power that prohibited religious views in State matters? And how well did that work out? Point being, there are many laws already on the books that are not being enforced. Enforcement and funding are the political and populous part of the laws. And many of the fixes for today’s problems are right in front of us. Yet, will not be applied do to the human factor. The religious people have blind faith. The atheists are using mostly establishment science. The atheist movement has yet to take a step forward. So what is stopping the Blind Faith movement? Bitching and not understanding what makes an economy system operate and put food on the table and warmth in the house does not help. Everybody likes to eat the fried chicken, but nobody wants to kill and clean the chicken. I think you are thinking in the right direction, but it is not the scriptures that are the problem. That is like saying the gun kills people. When it is people who kill people. Taking the guns away will not stop the killings.Why? Countries with fewer guns have fewer killings. Is it Just a coincidence? LLTo many factors to say we would be comparing apples to apples. Example, Canada has more guns per capita and far less gun violence and is much closer to comparing apples to apples than other countries to the United States.
, Which is the more Christian country today, Russia or the United States? Didn’t Russia sort of had the Constitutional Amendment power that prohibited religious views in State matters? And how well did that work out? Point being, there are many laws already on the books that are not being enforced. Enforcement and funding are the political and populous part of the laws. And many of the fixes for today’s problems are right in front of us. Yet, will not be applied do to the human factor. The religious people have blind faith. The atheists are using mostly establishment science. The atheist movement has yet to take a step forward. So what is stopping the Blind Faith movement? Bitching and not understanding what makes an economy system operate and put food on the table and warmth in the house does not help. Everybody likes to eat the fried chicken, but nobody wants to kill and clean the chicken. I think you are thinking in the right direction, but it is not the scriptures that are the problem. That is like saying the gun kills people. When it is people who kill people. Taking the guns away will not stop the killings.
Why? Countries with fewer guns have fewer killings. Is it Just a coincidence? LL
This may clarify my previous postsPredominantly Atheist Countries Have Lowest Crime Rate According To Study - Religion - Nairaland http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime.Gun politics in Canada,Gun politics in Canada is largely about registration. Handgun registration became law in 1934, and automatic firearms were added in 1951. In 1969, laws classified firearms as "non-restricted", "restricted", and "prohibited". Since 1977, individuals who wish to acquire firearms legally are required to pass a criminal background check. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada
Write4U, Which is the more Christian country today, Russia or the United States? Didn’t Russia sort of had the Constitutional Amendment power that prohibited religious views in State matters? And how well did that work out? Point being, there are many laws already on the books that are not being enforced. Enforcement and funding are the political and populous part of the laws. And many of the fixes for today’s problems are right in front of us. Yet, will not be applied do to the human factor. The religious people have blind faith. The atheists are using mostly establishment science. The atheist movement has yet to take a step forward. So what is stopping the Blind Faith movement? Bitching and not understanding what makes an economy system operate and put food on the table and warmth in the house does not help. Everybody likes to eat the fried chicken, but nobody wants to kill and clean the chicken. I think you are thinking in the right direction, but it is not the scriptures that are the problem. That is like saying the gun kills people. When it is people who kill people. Taking the guns away will not stop the killings.Why? Countries with fewer guns have fewer killings. Is it Just a coincidence? LLTo many factors to say we would be comparing apples to apples. Example, Canada has more guns per capita and far less gun violence and is much closer to comparing apples to apples than other countries to the United States. But what kind of guns does Canada have more of and how do the laws differ? I have never looked into this, but I would say they might have more "hunting" guns (isn't it popular sport there?), but do they sell the same types of guns as the U.S. based on their laws? I would say that could possibly be an explanation.