It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Little Sisters of the Poor Aiding in the Religious Right Wing's Agenda for a Theocratic Government

page: 15
34
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That's where you are wrong.

A Map Showing Which U.S. Public Schools Teach Creationism to Kids


Interesting map. On the latest PISA test 3 US states submitted their scores for international grading. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Florida. Two of the three were among the top 10 in the world, and arguably in the top 3 once you get into testing biases. Florida however was lower than nations that don't even have official schooling systems.

Interesting to see that and now how Florida lines up.

Dec 2016 can't come soon enough, that's when the next round of PISA grading will be released and most US states participated this time I believe.




posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
... except that science does its best to determine what reality is by testing and measuring, analyzing results, developing a theory, testing and measuring more, sharing results with others, testing and measuring more and finally saying "This is what we know to be true based on the data."

Religion is a set of beliefs based on traditional teachings and emotional responses. Religion says "This is what we know to be true because we believe it to be true."

They are not the same, they are not similar, and science is clearly more effective at managing our lives in the day-to-day world than religion.

If not, then I suggest you put down all your medicines and pray (burn incense, sacrifice goats, what have you) for healing.

You will soon know first-hand what the most effective system is.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Again, that map isn't public schools.

a reply to: Aazadan



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Again, that map isn't public schools.

a reply to: Aazadan



Again, what do you think "charter schools" are? Schools that receive public funding. They are not "private" schools.

They are at best a "hybrid" ... of course, we'd have to be teaching actual biology so that any student would recognize that word.

Public money should not be used to spread religion, period.
edit on 16Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:46:57 -050015p042015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Again, that map isn't public schools.

a reply to: Aazadan



PISA testing includes all schools in the state (or all schools/students the state wishes to submit). Public vs private isn't relevant to the discussion.
edit on 28-7-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I guess you ignored my post on the last page that shows public schools ARE teaching creationism.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Operating more than 65 campuses in Texas, Arkansas, and Indiana, Responsive Ed receives more than $82 million in taxpayer money annually, and it is expanding, with 20 more Texas campuses opening in 2014.


Keep arguing that creation is only taught on homes and private schools (which is as it should be) but you're patently incorrect.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I am wagering you don't actually believe it is a possibility


A full transition to theocracy may not happen, but religious tenets becoming law has been happening since the 1950s. There is more and more religious influence taking place in our government.

People are teaching creation in schools.
Science is thought of as "opinion" because it disagrees with religion.
Our currency says, "In God We Trust".
Discrimination against LGBT people is rampant (disguised as "Religious Freedom").
Abortion clinics are closing right and left.
Women's reproductive rights (contraception) are being attacked.

So, religious influence isn't something that's going to happen, it's HAPPENED, and they've only begun.



Hmmm...


Since the 1950's we have less religious laws. Prior to the 1960's we had a HUGE number of teligious based laws and mandated religion--things like "The Lords Prayer" and the Bible were in EVERY public school. Since then we have Less laws against sexual things. Out right bans on religiousity in the public square. A ban on prayer In schools. Increased rights for gays and so forth. Porn is more acceptable and public and Larry Flynt has won every court case. How can one honestly say we are running pell-mell into a theocracy? The actual evidence indicates the opposite and, honestly, the cries of such sound the same as the silly cries of Christians complaining about persecution.

I'm re-watching Ken Burns' excellent documentary on the civil war and for this reason this pops into my mind. The anti-slavery movement was entirely a religious one with Christians trying to make law and, in the case of John Brown, actually violating the law in the name of their imaginary God. They molded the government and the law to fit their religion.

I'm curious if you would say the same thing about them? That those nasty Christians with all of their talk of abolition should get out of politics--that they should be taxed and silenced if they supported abolitionist candidates or taught abolitionist Christianity in schools? After all, you've said that there should be zero religion in politics.


edit on 28-7-2015 by IanFleming because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-7-2015 by IanFleming because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: IanFleming

Brilliant post, Ian.

I, too, find it interesting to see how the politics of Evangelical Christianity have changed since the Victorian era. The original Evangelicals included many who were liberals, members of the Whiggish middle class in England — bourgeois with money. Their leading lights included a former Chairman of the British East India Company, a best-selling writer of moralistic books and tracts, and any number of self-made capitalists. They even counted a few members of the peerage — such as Lord Glenelg, a Secretary of State for the Colonies, and eventually the great Lord Palmerston himself — among their number.

However, the bond between conservatism and Evangelicalism is a natural one. Even the great Evangelical champion and abolitionist parliamentarian, William Wilberforce, was ultimately a conservative and gave his support to much repressive legislation in the course of his career. Conservatisim and Evangelicalism are both philosophies based on fear of the unknown (social change in one case, post-mortem punishment in the other), so it is natural that they should be allied.

Is America moving towards theocracy? I'm not American and I've never lived there, but from an external perspective it is rather obvious that it is not. The separation of church and state is more powerfully mandated and enforced in America than almost anywhere else in the world. In my country, Buddhism is the de facto state religion — its 'special position' is written into the Constitution, though freedom of conscience is also guaranteed — so I know what it is to live in a country with a dominant, dictatorial religious majority. America is not like that.

However, Americans, knowing no other regime but their own, tend to get excited at the slightest threat to what they regard as their freedoms. Liberals get excited when they see signs of religious infiltration into government and politics. Conservatives get excited if it starts to look like the government is trying to take away their God-given right to shoot their neighbours full of holes.


edit on 28/7/15 by Astyanax because: of holes.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I'm fifty. I lived (consiously) through the 1970s, 80s, 90s, 00s, and now 10s. I've lived in the US all my life.

Surely, during the scope of my lifetime, America has had a few revisions that are focused on actual Constitutional rights, rights that had "always existed" (at least I like to think so) within the framework of the Constitution, but were either ignored by the dominant majority of Americans or had to be clarified and strengthened by the passage of additional, clarifying, Amendments and laws.

Yes, Christianity was the "dominant religion" or perhaps more accurately the "religion of the dominant" in American society for nearly 200 years, BUT, it was a diffuse joining of many sects and denominations with their own unique views on certain basic tenets. Thus generic references to "God" were okay and even accepted in and around government institutions (since, in their minds, that covered the beliefs of most Protestants, Catholics and even Jews). Also, certain fairly common restrictions based on generally accepted beliefs (limited retail sales on Sunday, for example) were also seen.

BUT ...

There was a "general understanding" that the specific beliefs and rituals of any sect, denomination, etc. WERE NOT appropriate for the political arena at large, and, I believe that we need to acknowledge, that there remained even in 19th and 20th century America, a good deal of fear and/or resentment toward the Roman Catholic Church that sprang not only from the Reformation in general, but also, from the very specific restrictions placed on the Church in English tradition.

Thus, keeping a "separation of church and state" really meant to keep as many Catholics out of power as possible.

Also, I would argue, the place of religion in American life in general was much different than we see today. One's faith was considered a personal or even private matter as Jefferson famously said "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God." (Letter to the Danbury Baptists) Also many felt, at least at a national level, that since a Representative, Senator or President represented many or all Americans, that the political arena was not the place to impose (or defile) individual religious beliefs.

There is a fairly unique version of politicized Christianity that has existed since the 1980s particularly, that insists on a complete reversal of those early trends. As laws have changed to incorporate many groups and people that had been trampled over historically into the discourse of "the public square" as someone said, a reactionary brand of politically active Christian has emerged, that have no qualms about stating clearly that they believe that their own understanding of the "laws of God" is what should govern the actions of government. At the same time, by aligning themselves with the traditional Republcian party for political strength, these "new Christians" have also adopted the seemingly non-Christian positions of rampant nationalism (aka American Exceptionalism), world military domination, and have set themselves against charitable government measures like the social safety nets, equal rights for Blacks, Women, Gays, Latinos, etc.

Barry Goldwater, one of the founders of the modern Conservative movement (interestingly enough, of Jewish descent) may have voiced the overall concern best when he said:



Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.


Barry Goldwater quote

Emphasis mine.

So, when some of us talk about concerns of a Christian Theocracy in America, we're pointing to the same concerns (totalitarian, uncompromising) that Mr. Goldwater voiced almost 30 years ago.

That's a delicious bit of irony for you.
edit on 7Wed, 29 Jul 2015 07:34:16 -050015p072015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: IanFleming
a reply to: Astyanax

I could not possibly answer these posts any better than Gryphon66 did. I'm also in my 50s and have seen the difference between religion being a personal matter and becoming a political fighting force. It is this "fairly unique version of politicized Christianity" that is my concern.

When I post threads or posts like this, people tend to think I'm "anti-religion" or "anti-Christian" and it's simply not true. I think people's relationship with their spiritual leader (whomever it is) and their church, plays an important role in society and in people's lives. I have NO qualms about that. I honestly support freedom of religion.

But I am against the "politicized Christianity" of today, that denies others their legal rights and attempts to "legalize" Christianity, and make it a special class of people who don't have to follow the laws of the land.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: IanFleming
a reply to: Astyanax

I could not possibly answer these posts any better than Gryphon66 did. I'm also in my 50s and have seen the difference between religion being a personal matter and becoming a political fighting force. It is this "fairly unique version of politicized Christianity" that is my concern.

When I post threads or posts like this, people tend to think I'm "anti-religion" or "anti-Christian" and it's simply not true. I think people's relationship with their spiritual leader (whomever it is) and their church, plays an important role in society and in people's lives. I have NO qualms about that. I honestly support freedom of religion.

But I am against the "politicized Christianity" of today, that denies others their legal rights and attempts to "legalize" Christianity, and make it a special class of people who don't have to follow the laws of the land.


The only reason why it seems "politicized Christianity" today is because it's not the mainstream. Prior to the 1960's it was the government, with Progressives from JFK to FDR quoting scripture to justify their political acts in addition to the Conservatives.



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: IanFleming
The only reason why it seems "politicized Christianity" today is because it's not the mainstream. Prior to the 1960's it was the government, with Progressives from JFK to FDR quoting scripture to justify their political acts in addition to the Conservatives.


That is true, but in the 1950s, women "knew their place", abortion was illegal, black people self-segregated and were abused worse than they are today, but had no recourse. Gay people sequestered themselves firmly in the closet and transgendered people were the "freaks" of society. All of these groups "hid" from the mainstream, so the mainstream were only peripherally aware of their existence. It was a different time. And Christians loved it because as long as they kept their blinders on, everything was "as it should be" according to them. They could pretend that gays, etc., didn't really "count".

But when these groups started standing up and demanding their rights, THAT was the beginning of what politicized Christianity has become today. THAT'S when Christianity started to fight against anyone that wasn't what they judged to be "moral" and "right". As these groups became stronger and more vocal, so did the politicks of religion and "religious morals" in government. There is a strong right-wing element that wants to make it the 1950s again, and it's not going to happen.
edit on 7/29/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Exactly.

Further, the argument that Christianity is not "in the mainstream" today is ludicrous.

Every Republican candidate is wetting themselves to get to the microphone to proclaim how their particular "true old time religion" is better than the next goon saying the same thing. I keep waiting for one of them to claim that Deuteronomy and Leviticus will be the new basis of their Department of Justice.

There are whole cable channels devoted to Christianity. There are Christian churches on every corner with billboards proclaiming their market-corner on "the truth." 78-80% of ALL AMERICANS still count themselves as Christian.

Now, given, America is more religiously diverse 65 years later than the supposed "theocratic past" (which is simply not accurate) ever imagined we would be. Can you imagine Satanists even being given a day in court in the 50s?

And it is that very diversity, and the threat of wider-ranging acceptability of "alternatives" to the control-structures of Christian religion that drives some of these folks INSANE.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And is "Christianity" winning? No, because our founding fathers made sure all would eventually get liberty and freedom. One who is downtrodden by discrimination will eventually receive his due, whether in his lifetime or the lifetime of his children or children's children.

Subversive elements which attempt to undermine the personal liberties of others will always lose in the long run in this country, because we have checks and balances to make sure all, no matter their race, sexual orientation etc, can live "The American Dream".

Far more will fight for that dream, than will fight against it. If that dream starts to be crushed, grab the bugout bag, the end is coming.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

To your question about if satanist's would get a day in court in the 50's...yes, they would.

Many religions, who are not "Christian" or who are "Christian" but completely opposed to typical "Christian" teachings have gotten their days in court going back to the 19th and 20th centuries. Specifically on if they could proselytize their un-christian beliefs in public.

During my time at USC I remember a great article about how good the 50's were for the freedom of religion put out in the College Paper.

Satanism as a religion didn't exist until the late 60's.

So let's not draw on logical fallacies to support our points of view please.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Goldwater quotation is quite famous. But you — who have, as you say, lived in the United States all your life — have no experience of a society where one religion is officially favoured or mandated over others. I have. I've lived in my own country, I've lived in the Muslim Arab world, I've lived in the United Kingdom where the head of state is also the head of the 'established' church. Even in England, the most secular and progressive of these countries, situations exist that would not be tolerated in the United States. Do you who the biggest landowner in England is, after the Crown? Do you know what institution appoints the governing bodies of the leading public schools of the country (from which the nation's ruling class is disproportionately drawn), and of the great colleges of Oxford and Cambridge? Did you know that 26 bishops, the Lords Spiritual as they are called, form part of the British government?

As for my own country, the dominant Buddhist majority here goes on a rampage every few years and bashes Muslims, Hindus and Christians. Mostly, these atrocities are conducted with impunity. Buddhism is awarded (as I mentioned earlier) a 'special place' here, according to our constitution, and everyone has to follow Buddhist dietary and other prohibitions on Buddhist holidays.

And even this is not 'theocracy'.

Iran is a 'theocracy'.


So, when some of us talk about concerns of a Christian Theocracy in America, we're pointing to the same concerns (totalitarian, uncompromising) that Mr. Goldwater voiced almost 30 years ago.

That's right, 30 years ago. And America is no nearer being a theocracy today than it was in 1985. Or 1885, come to that.


edit on 30/7/15 by Astyanax because: of a few tweaks.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

To your question about if satanist's would get a day in court in the 50's...yes, they would.

Many religions, who are not "Christian" or who are "Christian" but completely opposed to typical "Christian" teachings have gotten their days in court going back to the 19th and 20th centuries. Specifically on if they could proselytize their un-christian beliefs in public.

During my time at USC I remember a great article about how good the 50's were for the freedom of religion put out in the College Paper.

Satanism as a religion didn't exist until the late 60's.

So let's not draw on logical fallacies to support our points of view please.


You're the one that claims that Satanists would have gotten a fair trial in the 50s. I just asked a question.

Perhaps you should review what a logical fallacy is. Also, review "anecdotal evidence."



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Answers:

Church of England?
Church of England?
House of Lords?

I appreciate your opinion and your thoughtful relation of it. I don't feel as strongly about my ability to predict the future as you seem to, but I certainly do hope you are correct!

Best.



posted on Jul, 30 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Full marks.

Now imagine if the chief prelate of the Episcopal Church made staff appointments to Ivy League colleges. Or the Roman Catholic Church owned something like five million acres of land within the continental United States. Or there was a group of US senators who were not elected by the people, but appointed by the Southern Baptist Convention.


I don't feel as strongly about my ability to predict the future as you seem to, but I certainly do hope you are correct!

You're American, so naturally you're especially sensitive to the influence of current events in America. I dare say I am the same about current affairs in my own country. Sometimes an outsider's perspective is needed for clarity.

I recently finished Walter Isaacson's biography of Albert Einstein. In it, the author makes a point (in relation to the McCarthy era) that the US experiences these lurches to the right or left, or outbreaks of mass anxiety and overreaction by the authorities to whatever is causing public concern, from time to time. The reason, he says, is that the constitutional protection of free speech and other liberal provisions in your constitution extend tolerance to extreme and sensational opinions — but that the process is self-correcting, and the very same freedoms that engender these outbreaks also control and dissipate them before they get out of hand. It made me think — and made me feel a little easier about religious fanatics, gun addicts and the rest of the American paranoid-political zoo. Though only a little.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join