Some more ball

Why does religion keep popping back up in politics, why are the religious organizations so persistent in threatening politicians that excommunication will be the punishment for going against a view of the church in the political field?

Sharpton’s argument is somewhat convincing, stating that religious organizations do not want deviations of their beliefs, held by elected officials, making a bad reflection of the religion in the public’s eye. Although this may seem like a reasonable point, I see it negatively affecting the way politics are run. It creates a sense of power to the religions who dominate the political arena and allows for a clear disadvantage to the minorities who occupy a far less amount of seats and power in Washington and across the United States.

For me, this goes back to the idea that religion and politics will never find a way to stray away from each other. There is too much at stake, too much power involved, for any one or any group to let that opportunity pass by them, especially when someone else is likely to snatch it up.

Sadly, like the crisis in the Middle East, I do not see a solution to the problem, nor do I see any side making a valiant attempt at finding a way to compromise and look for a happy median.

Hardball, Soft bats

So Christopher Hitchens is a bit of a radical and his beliefs contradict mine a bit in regards to religion, but regardless of how I feel, I have to give the man credit for making consistently great arguments and has decent evidence in defense of every question being thrown at him.

An interesting point I thought Hitchens made was that religion did not have a part in Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq. The Methodist and Catholic Church, along with many others, Hitchens says, did not support the war from the beginning, so it seems clear that religion did not give Bush the motivation to send troops over to the Middle East.

The next point is the question of whether everyone prays to one God, or a multitude of gods in respect to political leaders in different regions of the world. My personal belief is that there is one God, who has similar expectations and foundations for any believer regardless of faith. Sharpton thinks that although there is only one God, yet people receive misguided answers from different Gods. I’m not sure what that means, or if it makes any sense at all, but I understand the point he is trying to get at is that people might twist their idea of what story God has given them to gain the advantage they can for themselves and their people.

Sharpton’s comment on Mitt Romney’s candidacy being ended by people who truly believe in God because they will not vote for him is beyond hypocritical and his defense on Hardball is even more pathetic.

Scandals are so Convincing

Yeah I know, it is a bit out-dated, but it related to the topic we discussed in class of Televangelists. The thing I find most saddening about this entire scandal, is the fact that it is not over. This video had to of been made in the early 90’s, and it seemed like a pretty big crisis back then, but for some reason the rush is back and people are once again flocking to these money-hungry churches. My question is not so much what is wrong with the system to allow these kinds of behaviors and actions to go through, but what are these “reverends” and entrepreneurs doing so right that is attracting such a big crowd?

I have to give the Bakker’s credit though, their apology did come out very sincere, and the tears of Tammy while being interviewed in regards to her husband’s blown cover are truly convincing, and her innocence when asked about her salary seems heart-warming; and it worked. I think what needs to be done is education to these poor areas that are being exploited. There needs to be a mediating group that can counter this televangelist revolution and stop the bleeding before it gets any worse. It is not a coincidence that the majority of people that associate themselves with these false religions are in the poorer income bracket. It’s not too hard to understand why these are the types of people being taken advantage of, and not the wealthy folks in Orange County, or the Businessmen and women in New York. And this isn’t to say that the religious views of the wealthy are any more accurate or concrete. But those who have more money, typically are able to be better educated and experience and hear more of what the world has to offer, rather than thinking they can send the remaining balance on their credit card in to God with promises of unbound fortune to follow.

"Bill Maher on Religion"

The “rational minority” according to Bill Maher can potentially make a difference in the American political system, a system which thrives off of a religious background deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs. The question the Bill Maher raises is whether or not the American public will ever get over its religious ties to politics, and learn to leave the government and their personal religious beliefs separate. My only critique of this philosophy is that many of the mainstream issues circulating through the media and that are highly covered around any election time are issues that have answers strongly mixed with the religious views of the majority of Americans. It’ll be hard to stray away from the temptation of mixing faith and politics, especially when the public has made it clear that some sort of religious affiliation is a necessity for any would-be President (atheist being the least likely to get a vote from the American public).

What needs to be understood among the opposing religions when deciding whether or not a Presidential candidate’s religion will make a difference, is that every religion has its abstract on imaginative stories with somewhat unrealistic and scientifically unproven miracles, and we can not single out one religion’s stories and say that they are any different than our own. Although the world Bill Maher imagines seems like an ideal one, one where people don’t hold prejudices based on intangible beliefs and don’t base their political platforms from revelations from God, it seems highly unlikely and far-fetched to think that America will soon deviate from its deeply rooted religious history.

South Park

South Park may not be the best symbol that America should emulate, but I do consider their point of view (Trey Stone and Matt Parker), to be a realistic and sensible way to calm the quarrels of the religiously sensitive. The video is an interview referencing the episode where the climax was supposed to be the revealing of the prophet Mohammed. Although there were originally planning on airing the scene, Comedy Central eventually folded and ordered them not to show his face.

But look at how Matt and Trey treat all the other entities they ridicule and satirize, Jesus is a somewhat important character who appears often in episodes, and rarely as a saint-like son of God. The devil also plays a decent sized role, and special guests have been Saddam and the leaders of the Church of Scientology. There seems to be no limit on whom they poke fun of, and even through all the criticism they receive, the show remains incredibly popular. I just find it hypocritical that exceptions have to be made in fear of retaliation, when they is no doubt that Muslim cartoonists and columnist also make jokes at the ideas and philosophies that they find radical and obscure.

America needs to take a page of Stone and Parker’s book, and learn to take things less seriously, especially when it is something that is harmless, something as child-like as a cartoon. I know certain things needs to be taking seriously and respectfully, and I understand that a major concern is the ignorance that can stem from false truths about a religion based on stereotypes, but ultimately we can learn from things like this by asking questions and doing the research ourselves.

No way out?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.sullivan1.html

It’s tough to say what I would do if I were in Romney’s situation. If there was one huge issue I could change about the way Romney is going about this barrage of interviews criticizing his religion, is to be open and honest with more questions. I realize that he does not want his religion to make or break his candidacy, but at a certain point he has to understand that the scrutiny is not going to cease, not until he drops out, loses, or answers the questions. And since personally, I see him as a viable candidate with a legitimate shot of winning, I feel that he would be better suited in the long run to try and please the public’s curiosity. On the other hand, I think he has done a good job reiterating to reporters that he will make sure his religion stays out of his policy making. I would also prefer, though entirely unrealistic, that journalists and reporters focus more on other areas of his life, such as the success of the Winter Olympics in Utah, or his strong term as Governor of Massachusetts.

I believe there is a good reason why Mormonism is looked at as such a “weird” religion in the eyes of the public, even with their newly discovered religious tolerance. They are sheltered, hidden from the limelight that religious such as Catholicism, Judaism, and Muslims share. Although I’m sure they do not mind what their perception is outside of their community, Romney might want to reconsider keeping quiet about the ins and outs of his religion, especially if he wants to have success in the primaries, which are full of critical conservatives and opposing liberals.

Supreme Decision

Link

Although I had not heard of this court decision, I am not surprised to see that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did. I can understand that they do not want the courts to be flooded with hundreds upon thousands of cases, most of which would probably be insignificant and too vague to make a decision, but I do agree with the opposition that this limits the separation of church and state amendment. When it comes down to it though, there are too many people out there that would sue the government for personal issues and try to contest things that they personally do not agree with, and seeing how deeply rooted religion can be in some people, even if they receive a ruling against them, the appeal process could end up causing an even larger back-up in the system. I am a personal believer in the clear separation of church and state, but experiencing the last five-ten years of my life, and watching how many ridiculously stupid cases have been brought to the courts, I would not want to deal with that as a judge either. I realize that this is something much more serious than McDonald’s coffee spilling on someone’s lap, but I also do not think religion is something concrete enough to be brought to court on a consistent basis and from many different angles. It will take time to see whether or not this decision, made nearly six months ago, will end have having a dramatic effect, or whether there is just a false alarm.