Stick It Under A Bushel, Already.

I think America could be greatly improved by the implementation of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding religion. Or, better yet, let's just quit with the fucking around, abolish the Constitution, and go ahead and establish a national, state-sanctioned religion---The Holy Church Of Shut Your Fucking Mouth.That's right. Under my rule, everybody would be required to attend a weekly service (let's make it on Wednesday afternoons, would that be okay with everyone?) where we sit on hard, uncomfortable benches and sing rousing hymns such as "Bringing In the Sheaves Under Cover of Night So as Not to Annoy Our Neighbors", "And He Walks With Me, And He Talks With Me, Quietly, About the Importance Of Not Shoving My Belief System Down My Friends' Throats", and so on. Not too catchy, I know, but a hell of an improvement. Then we'd all listen from a sermon by a crotchety old fart (Or Jill--maybe they can alternate) about how nobody wants to hear about your walk with Jesus, or your enlightenment by Buddha, or that nifty poem you wrote about the Goddess last Imbolc, so let's just talk about the Royals and not have an aneurism.Not an abolishment of religion, per se, just an abolishment of the CONSTANT, INCESSANT BLATHER about it. It's not just the rabid Fundamentalists I want to shut up, although just accomplishing that should put me up for a Nobel. It's everbody. I don't want to hear about how double-ended dildos make Jesus cry, but I also don't want to listen to Mary Fucking Hart gush about stupid twits who think they're suddenly Quabbalic mages. If bracelets are the new ribbons, then religion is the new politics, and I'm sick of fucking hearing about it.Do I think that this would put an end to such nonsense as the ban on homosexual marriage? Probably not, but you never know. If the issue were presented just as itself, without all the Christian trappings, then people might actually be forced to consider the issue's social ramifications, rather than whether or not those other Christians over there think you'll go to hell if you don't oppose it. If they want to vote for it because they've decided the Bible tells them to, that's fine and dandy. I have no problem with that. I just don't want to hear about how their decision is more righteous than mine because they based theirs on some moldy old book instead of their own experience and conscience.So bushels for everyone, I say! That's right, go get one of those (whatever the hell they are) and jam your light right up on in there. Except for Bill. Bill and Tori Amos. They can talk about their faith all they want.That's all. I'm going to shut my own mouth, pry my tongue out of my cheek, and put both to a much better use, namely, the consumption of hard liquor.

Comments

David Ryan 17 years, 4 months ago

Can there be 12-string guitars and incense? I miss the leftwing, antiwar, bread and vino Vatican II guitar masses of my 60's youth.

leslie 17 years, 4 months ago

Right on, Misty. I'd even be happy if we could get those far-right "ministers" (the ones who are leading these marches on Jericho, when they find the time between porking their secretaries and buying Buicks), to stop beginning their sentences with, "On behalf of all Christians..." and "This was a victory for Christians..." I expect a backlash soon, and I wouldn't be surprised if it came from some moderates who consider themselves (quiet) Christians.

Aufbrezeln Eschaton 17 years, 4 months ago

David--Hell, no! Not that I have anything against 12-string guitars OR incense, just that no church, not even mine, should be very pleasant. It already dominates too much of our culture as it is; can you imagine the bullshit if it were actually FUN?

notarickyfan 17 years, 4 months ago

But your conscience must be based on something. What? My conscience is based on my experiences and my morals. I freely admit I view my morals as absolute and not relative to situation or circumstance. Does that always mean that I make the correct moral choice.. no. What it does mean is that while I am fallible my morals are absolute and prescribe a way of life that I strive for and yet will never be able to attain.

Aufbrezeln Eschaton 17 years, 4 months ago

Woot! See, you just made a statement about making decisions from a moral standpoint without once saying the "C" word. I knew I was on to something. . . . .

Aufbrezeln Eschaton 17 years, 4 months ago

Yeah, I'm willing to be the poor Democrat maintenance man has a hell of a lot better understanding of how electricity reaches his home than a Republican lawyer.

Carmenilla 17 years, 4 months ago

This is where you are supposed to have a sense of humor. It helps.

OtherJoel 17 years, 4 months ago

Not a fan of Ricky who? Ricardo? Martin? Rachtman? Schroeder? Just wondering...

notarickyfan 17 years, 4 months ago

To get back to the initial point. Christians have the same right to express their personal views as and atheist or evolutionist. Both of which require just as much faith to accept as Christianity.

Aufbrezeln Eschaton 17 years, 4 months ago

And again, notarickyfan, the point of the blog was not to say that they couldn't. It was to be fucking funny, and blow off some steam, which I think I accomplished on both points.

Snoop 17 years, 4 months ago

To all Da Blog superior intellectual elite: Please enlighten my unsaved soul. I've never been much of a believer, I'm afraid. In fact, I must confess a wildly skeptical streak. I'm cursed with a mad desire to search diligently when I'm making up my mind about whatever it is other folks think most sacred. I don't seem to be able to get over this strange tendency to feel I should try to actually know something rather than to simply say I believe something I'd otherwise consider absurd. Me? Refusing to have doubts? Never. I'm a kind of happy-go-lucky infidel, I suppose. Don't you folks ever have doubts about those scary Bible lessons?

The truth about the Bible is that it will never be proven correct. If it were, we would have no choice but to believe. I think of the movie Dogma partially because of ALJ's avatar, and anyone familiar with it might agree that it makes a good point about the distinction between angels and men. Angels can see God, they can hear his voice, and they can not deny his existence. For that reason, they get zero tolerance for disobedience. But God made us differently: we can't see God and we can deny his existence. God wants us to be different from angels in that we CHOOSE him. If the existence of God were proven there really wouldn't be a choice anymore would there? We would be like the angels in Dogma. We would still have free will, but be given no mercy. CONFUSING HUH?

MITZI YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS MORE SERIOUSLY OR I WILL HAVE BENNY HINN COME SLAP YOU ON THE FOREHEAD AND SET YOU STRAIGHT WITH BUDDY JESUS.
PUT DOWN THAT DRINK AND REPENT OR CARMENILLA WILL COME GET YOU.....

notarickyfan 17 years, 4 months ago

I would argue that most people using the "C" word have no idea why they are "C" and haven't even bothered to justify in thier own minds why they call themselves that. Most likely it's because that's what Mommy and Daddy told them they were. Add to that a sort of "civic religion" mindset and you get the view that "of course I'm a 'C', I'm an American!" Those people have no basis to back up anything they believe in. I used to teach high school in the inner city and I would say, "How many people believe racism is bad?" Every kid would know the right answer and every hand would go up. I would then say "Great, I agree... now tell me why". People need to know why they believe what they believe. When it came to religion I wasn't going to claim to be part of something merely because my parents or others around me did. Religion can be used for political reasons far too often. Lawrence itself was founded by religous zealots that tried to act on thier moral values by creating an abolitionist outpost in a territory that was being populated by slave state sympathizers. They sought to use Mt. Oread as a "shining city on a hill". The absolute morals that they adhered to stated that slavery was evil and should be opposed. John Brown misused that moral view to justify hacking a family to death with swords and throwing them in Pottawatomie creek. (1856) Religion can be used or misused but the moral values upon which they are based remain true. p.s. the name notarickyfan was a user id I created years ago to tease a coworker that adored Ricky Martin. It has no political basis it just happens to be an id that is never claimed when I register.

Carmenilla 17 years, 4 months ago

Don't pull me into this! I think Mitzi deserves every last drink she gets. She's a mom. Moms are allowed to blow off steam. We NEED to have an escape every once in awhile. Maybe more so then the average angry ranting blogger......And she's funny too!

Melissa Lynch 17 years, 4 months ago

Wow Misty. You sure know how to spark a debate. I'm not going to risk further comment, I can see just how it would go. I like the bushel idea, a LOT. I'm going to go lobby to get you that Nobel prize. Do I go to Switzerland for that?

Snoop 17 years, 4 months ago

Carmenilla are you calling me an angry AVERAGE blogger. I'm deeply offended, I'm HARDLY AVERAGE!!

And I will advise you that Mitzi can hardly handle her liquor, so there!!!

Terry Bush 17 years, 4 months ago

Not Ricky - you say = "People need to know why they believe what they believe." I don't necessarily disagree, but why do you say it? I think that MOST people don't even know what they believe, let alone be able or willing to explain the basis for their beliefs. So, if we must know why we believe what we do, assuming that is true, most people fail.

But - there is a possibility that some people don't need to know why they believe. They can believe and be happy...and not make everyone around them misberable in the process. If their beliefs take action and those actions promote the good and holy. Let me explain.

I was taught there are 4 basic levels of why people believe - and what prompts or results from their belief systems. These levels are evident in many religions. With the assumption that we are talking about people who "believe" and are trying to do "the right thing" (as defined by their set of values):

1 - you are a child. You do things a certain way out of fear (of punishment usually, but also out of fear of being different or wrong).

2 - you are a teen. You do things a certain way out of hope (you seek a reward of some sort).

3 - you are an adult. You do things a certain way because there is a right way and wrong way to do them.

4 - you are a saint/holy person. You do things a certain way without thinking - because that is just your nature, habit and way. The unconscience good person.

Point being, that if you achieve holiness...you may not do things because you believe one way or the other. You just do them. And you do what is right (without conscience thought). If you have not met someone who is at that 4th level, I can't explain how comforting and sincere it can be.

But not all people travel the same road. The Christians have the concept of The Body of Christ, meaning humanity has different parts. With different gifts. If someone isn't just like us, or acts different, or thinks different - it is not only OK it is to be celebrated. When we attack the head for not being the heart - we expose our ignorance and our own lack of belief in what ever system we espouse.

Aufbrezeln Eschaton 17 years, 4 months ago

Aw, shucks, Carmenilla. I think I may be blushing. Or, that could be the bourbon. . . .

Jill Ensley 17 years, 4 months ago

My First Sermon.....

"YAY, For ye all be uptight douchebags...go home and repenteth." Then I'll ask everyone to turn to page 37 of their hymnals, where there will be a coupon for free corncob removal.

quinn 17 years, 4 months ago

Misty, Misty, Misty... You are SO out of touch w/ NeoAmerica.

This moved on AP today:

"L-D-S church officials say they're looking forward to meeting this weekend with Jewish leaders, but won't comment on accusations that proxy baptisms of Jews continue. Kim Farah is a spokeswoman for The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. She says the L-D-S church has no comment on the issue for the moment. Jewish leaders say Mormons continue to posthumously baptize Jews and Holocaust victims into the L-D-S faith Meetings are scheduled for Sunday and Monday. Jewish
leaders say they have records proving tens of thousands of Jews
were posthumously baptized over the past ten years and as
recently as last month. A 1995 agreement signed by Jewish leaders and the L-D-S
church called for an immediate halt to unwanted proxy baptisms."

The Mormons aren't baptizing only dead Jews; apparently their curious belief system calls for the baptism of every human who has ever lived. Thus LDS functionaries are baptizing or have baptized George Washington, the late Pope, and p'haps even Michael Jackson.

Get down w/ the times, Misty. Moronic, childlike superstition is now the Official NeoAmerican Way. There's hardly anyone in the GOP who can offer a succint explanation of how electricity reaches their home, or what it does once it gets there, but every single one of them counsels Jesus Christ every day on the shortcomings of their neighbors. It ain't Real Religion if some violently stupid mouthbreather ain't ramming it down yr throat.

sofresh 17 years, 4 months ago

You all obveusly hate america!!!!

And ricky made up that name to taunt a gulf war vet!

Love and Prayers!

notarickyfan 17 years, 4 months ago

Ladylaw. If you are addressing the different parts of the body of Christ you have to look at the context that Paul was placing those comments in. In his first letter to the Corinthian church he makes that allusion but the diversity that is to be celebrated is in reference to talents and spiritual gifts. My attraction to members of the opposite sex or someone elses attration to the same sex doesn't even factor in. It is also within the body of believers not people outside the faith.

Quin. The statistics show you wrong on that one. The majority of Republican voters have college degrees (remember we are the party of the rich greedy people) The majority of Democrat voters don't have degrees. (the poor the disadvantaged and oppressed) I would also argue that the majority of Republicans value the money they have much more than the moral beliefs they claim to hold. Not that Democrats are much better. For most people in America religion is a pastime that has very little relevance to day to day life.

quinn 17 years, 4 months ago

notarickyfa.

Which statistics are those? Who taught you that possession of a college degree confers intelligence, and why do believe that? If "(f)or most people in America religion is a pastime that has very little relevance to day to day life," why are the Christianists in the headlines every week bleating about the constant persecution they suffer at the hands of a Godless America?

quinn 17 years, 4 months ago

I'll save you the time. This from About.com's US Conservatives page at

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/politics/a/GOPDemDemo.htm

"Because education levels track income levels, there's few surprises on how educational attainment affects partisanship. Just as with income, as educational levels go up, more people are inclined to be Republican. Americans with less than a high-school education are overwhelmingly Democratic, 41 percent to 20 percent, while people who have just a high-school degree are Democrats, 34 percent to 28 percent. People with some college training tend to be Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent while those with at least bachelor's degrees are Republican, 33 percent to 32 percent. I've seen other surveys on partisanship that show people with advanced degrees to be more Democratic than Republican, making those just bachelor's degrees more Republican if they're broken out of all those with some sort of a college degree."

Which is to say--for those of us who speak English--that the "difference" in degree levels is one percent, unless you throw out the most educated metric, in which case it might be slightly higher..

I note that none of this has anything to do w/ the point of the blog. No surprise there...

notarickyfan 17 years, 4 months ago

Remember, philosophy is the basis of all religions so we need to ban philosophic discourse as well. Humanism is recognized by the United Nations as one of the worlds most popular religions so we need to throw all humanistic discourse out with it. Agnosticism and Atheism are also recognized as religion so those folks need to keep opinions to themselves. Or did you mean to say that only world views that you don't like should be quiet. That's really championing the cause of openmindedness and tolerance. Besides you would have a really lame blog if your wishes came true.

Aufbrezeln Eschaton 17 years, 4 months ago

I totally agree with your last sentence. As for the rest, please refer to my last paragraph. Thank you.

Snoop 17 years, 4 months ago

Ah after your rant Mitzi I had to find this quote::. Feel free to put this on the back of your business cards, T-shirts, or screen savers. Somebody call the Third Planet so they can make a poster to stick in the window!

Dr. John Dewey, Indeed, he was a very good liberal:

The objection to supernaturalism is that it stands in the way of an effective realization of the sweep and depth of the implications of natural human relations. It stands in the way of using the means that are in our power to make radical changes in these relations. In other words, Christianity is a hindrance to liberal ideas of progressive social relations. It must be removed. This is a cardinal tenet of liberalism today, and it is clear why there is no desire among the left to promote the Christian faith, why they defend abortion, homosexuality, preÂ- and extramarital sex, and almost every other vile crudity that pervades our country: men must be "free," and Christianity is the greatest obstacle to that freedom and does all sorts of evil to prevent people from being "free" In the liberal mind, "freedom" equals "progress," so, Christianity must be eliminated, or at least relegated to a nonÂ-influential role in society's affairs.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.