I’m just lost for words. Stunned really, after viewing this:
I wonder if “cellphonic anointments from God” are part of Cingular’s “friends and family” mobile package. And to think that these completely delusional nutjobs might be fixing the brakes on your car, arranging your next mortgage, running for the PTA, the vice-presidency of the United States, or who knows what… even planning to hasten the apocalyptic End of Days maybe.
Great googly-mooogly, what a completely fucked-up world we live in!
Red Tory v.3.0.3 
“Cellphonic anointments” from God…
Hey, don’t be surprised when it catches on with the broader public, like Palin’s sexy rimless glasses.
I foresee Telus offering phone anointings as part of a basic bundle package, with the option of a “tongues of fire” upgrade for the Holy-Spirit conscious thumper-on-the-go.
Very unsettling but I’m not as shocked as others might be. I have been following this trend for some few years and it’s what fuels my fear of Harper ever getting a majority. It’s the base that Bush has been speaking to since 2000.
The thing is that their extreme religious views are not just confined to erradicating abortion and birth control, reprogramming and/or criminalizing LGBT citizens, teaching creationism and censoring all arts and popular culture deemed “offensive” to Jesus, but they have strong views on decentralizing government, eliminating and/or avoiding taxes, and fighting wars for Jesus’ return. They are dangerous and becoming stronger.
Harper may be distancing himself from the extremists in his caucus but his own Church, part of some kind of “Missionary Alliance” is of the same ilk as the Assemblies of God. I think the electorate would be shocked to learn more details about what he supports. Everyone’s religious beliefs or non-beliefs is a private matter as far as I’m concerned except when it’s tied to a dominionist/reformation movement that seeks to eliminate the separation of church and state and/or entrench a theocracy.
SF — As long as there’s a buck to be made from the “thumper-on-the-go” then I guess it’s all good. Praise be Jeebus!
Remember back in the 70’s when the televangelists were just a freaky nuisance, pain in the ass, Sunday on the tube giggle? The aura of “danger” was all around…it wasn’t even all that latent. Add a couple of generations of technological gadgetry and, voila. Here we are!
“Great googly-mooogly, what a completely fucked-up world we live in!” May you live in interesting times. =;-D
It will be an interesting waltz with the Southern secessionists.
Yes, I do remember that. Quite vividly, in fact.
In the 70s, religious extremists were, as you say, “freaky” — bizarre oddities of the fringe or quirky anomalies that could be dismissed as nothing more than weird, telegenic charlatans fleecing vulnerable people, much in the same way that other hucksters did in the world of business. At that time, I really thought that religion was on its way out the door… a failed idea that had been utterly discredited and reduced to the level of vaudevillian caricature.
Well, how wrong I was!
Red, re “At that time, I really thought that religion was on its way out the door.”
Hell, out the door! I was (and likely still am) of the Nietzscheian notion (nice ring to that) that he had hammered the final nail into the coffin of Christianity, if not of religion. Duh, me!
Personally, what is really grating is trying to get these neanderthals to distinguish between “spiritual” and “religious.” The vacant look of grazing cows. IMHO, Christians don’t seem to realize that if they were actually hip to the spiritual teachings of the Sermon on the Mount (the only words actually spoken) they’d likely be burning down their shacks of religiosity.
For one who has never been to a church service in my entire life, I’ll leave it at that.
How long before they charge extra to put satan on your DO NOT CALL list?
These people are dangerous and delusional.
Psychopaths, the lot of them.
And really, I don’t care who that sentiment upsets. They are nuts, all of them.
These people are the Christaliban, the American Mullahs and they are IDENTICAL in every way to Osama bin Laden, Sadr, and Hezbollah, except for the fictitious “holy book” they pretend to read.
I’m done being polite or making jokes about these guys. Time to fight them, hard.
RT, a Jewish-American colleague, quite observant himself, once pointed out to me that in the fifties, the supposed golden age of family values and religious observance, there was no “religious right” or any organized manifestation of faith on the political radar screen. Go figure.
Mike: Unless you plan to shoot them one by one, your comment makes it clear you have about as much chance of changing these people or negating their appeal as you do of reforming Islam.
Unless you plan to shoot them one by one, your comment makes it clear you have about as much chance of changing these people or negating their appeal as you do of reforming Islam.
With all due respect, Peter (I have to put that in, since Peter’s gotten a little brittle lately…):
You might actually ask Mike what he means by “fight” instead of rushing in, yet again, to attempt to convince someone that any kind of activism (except “conservative” radicalism, I suspect) is futile and that all of our fates are inevitable.
I imagine fighting religious extremism of all kinds, Islamist included, requires greater exposure of their networks, their practices, how they’re financed and what ideal world they advocate (if the ends are unpalatable, the means are likely as well). It’s not rocket science.
Let’s all hope that happens long before any violence is required.
Peter,
My intent was not to change them, as I suspect they really cannot be change. My intent was to “draw a line in the sand” as it were and just say “no more”. No more being polite because these ravings are about religion. No more simply cracking wise and trying to ridicule them because we don;t want to insult the so-called “moderates” in Christianity that these people do not represent.
My intent is to get people to stop treating these people with kid gloves and call them what they are, loudly and often. I don’t want them ignored, I want them confronted. I want a Democrat to show this video and say in no uncertain terms that Sarah Palin and those that believe this are nuts and cannot be trusted with the levers of power.
Its also more than a bit of pointing out the irony and hypocrisy of the situation – when dark-skinned middle Muslims act like this in the Middle East, it is these same right-wing Christians and Republicans that use it to make the case that these people are dangerous fanatics that must have war made against them lest they end up in the streets of the US.
Little do these guys know the dangerous fanatics they are trying to destroy in Iraq and Afghanistan “so we don’t have to fight them here” are already here – they just happen to be Christians.
I merely advocate making that abundantly clear and making it clear that Sarah Palin, the person the Republican Party see’s fit to be the person next in line to inherit “the button” from a 72 year old man who has already had cancer, is one of these people.
And I will only shoot them if they try to shoot me first.
Ti-Guy/Mike:
The point I am trying to make is that religious fundamentalism isn’t checked by a mocking contempt for religion or by wildly overstating or fear-mongering about it’s political significance. In fact, it only makes it worse. These people are reacting against something and you may want to be a little more open-minded and tolerant about what it is if you hope to persuade any of them they are wrong either politically or theologically. Francis Collins (head of the genome project) didn’t call ID Dawkins’s love-child for nothing. And Mike, there is a reason nobody makes that speech except frothing academics with tenure.
I realize the progressive mind today tends to be locked into a whig perpsective about how the history of the West is a progression from faith/superstition to enlightenment/science, but in fact, it’s a history of the ebb and flow of tensions between the religious and secular. There have been relatively few instances where either completely got the upper hand and they were all pretty scary. Deal with it.
If people want their religious beliefs reflected in politics they’d have to come to terms with the fact that their religion should then come under the scrutiny as any political idea, and therefore suffer debate and comparison. Take for instance absence only sexual education — works perfectly within the tenants of belief and faith (and I fully support something within a church). The problem is making it public policy. There is real evidence it doesn’t work to curb teen pregnancies or the spread of sexual diseases.
Peter re “I realize the progressive mind today tends to be locked into a whig perpsective about how the history of the West is a progression from faith/superstition to enlightenment/science, but in fact, it’s a history of the ebb and flow of tensions between the religious and secular. There have been relatively few instances where either completely got the upper hand and they were all pretty scary. Deal with it.”
I like it. I would likely call it “that old pendulum.”
These people are reacting against something…
And what might that be, exactly? I can hazard a few guesses, but it’s not something I have any expertise in (my religious upbringing put a lot of emphasis on free will not submission) and it *is* an exceedingly complex issue. It’s no wonder that many people simply draw a line in the sand and say “this far, no farther” and I think that isn’t exactly unreasonable message to communicate.
I’m not speaking for Mike (like you, I tend to find knee-jerk hostility or rolled-eyed snideness with regard to religion not only counter-productive but boring), but I don’t find constant scolding all that helpful either.
People want their religious views reflected in society, and they have a right to ask why this isn’t so, but we could almost turn that around and ask why isn’t society reflected in religion at times.
There’s the belief that religion doesn’t evolve over time. All religions do. The real problem is when people try and fix their beliefs in place. When that happens it almost becomes disconnected with what most people would say is happening around them. This isn’t to say that the basic beliefs shift, but let’s face it there are obscure parts of the Bible that even the religious fundamentalists never practice. The eating of pork is only the surface of this. Did you know it’s against God’s laws to eat fruit of trees less than five years old…the only thing you could be safe with are cherries. No mixed fibers in your clothes. Why did we drop these things? Why do we insist the world goes around the sun when the Bible appears to say the opposite (references to God stopping the sun from moving in the sky) ? What in modern life isn’t reflected in most major religions? What needs to change? As much as society needs to make accommodations for people’s spiritual sides, religion needs to actually engage with the modern world in an honest manner.
Ti-Guy,
Well put.
Peter,
Seems I’m not the only one who thinks this way and is fed up.
Take from it what you will. I maintain these people are dangerous fanatics, as dangerous as those our armed forces currently fight in Afghanistan. More dangerous because they are here, not in Afghanistan. That is why they must be confronted for what they are and stopped.
Would you say any different if this was a video of people in a Mississauga mosque acting like this?
I think you would…
And what might that be, exactly?
There is the question of the hour. OK, deep breath. I would say a world where the ideals and sense of purpose we all need to survive, and certainly to sustain the sacrifices demanded by family, parenthood and even community, are being constantly scorned and undermined by a materialism headed inexorably towards a radically deconstructed objective reality that the subjective in them and their lyin’ eyes are screaming isn’t true and would lead them to self-regarding despair if it were.
Sharon:
Perfectly reasonable, but no sex education has proven particularly effective. If the religious can’t impose abstinence programs, why should the secular impose condom demonstrations.
(Full disclosure: My reservations about sex education have been tempered considerably by the embarrassed, turned-off reaction to it I saw in my teenaged son and his friends. Memo to both sides: The kids aren’t taking any of it seriously! Just ask Sarah Palin)
Man, I just hate waking up in the morning only to realize that I’m being undermined by a materialism headed inexorably towards a radically deconstructed objective reality…
I would say a world where the ideals and sense of purpose we all need to survive, and certainly to sustain the sacrifices demanded by family, parenthood and even community, are being constantly scorned and undermined by a materialism headed inexorably towards a radically deconstructed objective reality that the subjective in them and their lyin’ eyes are screaming isn’t true and would lead them to self-regarding despair if it were.
I think I may agree with you as to what is part of the issue, but I’d like to clarify something first: what are the antecedents of the pronouns I’ve bolded?
Clarity first, after all.
TR:
I know, me too. Some turn to religion. For others a stiff one and a smoke start the reconstruction process.
“Just ask Sarah Palin”
Memo to Peter: Sarah Palin taught abstinence-only which study after study has shown doesn’t work and that her daughter has proven in spades. Meanwhile, the reduction in the number of abortions and teen pregnancies in Canada over the last few years can be attributed to proper sex ed and the availability of contraception.
You see, that would be science rather than unfounded “beliefs” and personal hunches talking.
Ti-Guy:
Sorry, the religious and those drawn to belief.
Man, I just hate waking up in the morning only to realize that I’m being undermined by a materialism headed inexorably towards a radically deconstructed objective reality…
Red, you have to indulge Peter while we all head towards the climax he (being a conservative) is so loath to reach; that we are dealing with irrationality on a fairly massive scale. Of course, it’s appallingly elitist to accuse anyone of irrationality, so we have to get there through a rather tortuous process of dialogue and vain intellectualising. That’s how the game is played.
Bear with us…
that we are dealing with irrationality on a fairly massive scale. Of course, it’s appallingly elitist to accuse anyone of irrationality,
No problem there. But it’s not elitist to accuse anyone of being irrational. What is elitist is to accuse someone of stupidity because they point out the irrational side of life and human nature and demur when you oh-so-rational brights insist you be allowed to fix it.
Who’s insisting that?
Just curious. Seems like you’re making stuff up.
Perfectly reasonable, but no sex education has proven particularly effective. If the religious can’t impose abstinence programs, why should the secular impose condom demonstrations.
Nothing is foolproof (God knows). But if you look at the teen pregnancy rates, the US is 9X what Europe’s is. Compare their Sexual education programs. (In 2002, 1/3 of teenagers didn’t receive any information on contraceptives.) No abstinence program has been shown to be effective. Not so sexual education programs.
If you look at terms of morality… what is more moral — letting people stay ignorant about how they could avoid certain diseases and unwanted pregnancy; or giving them information so that they could make informed choices. In terms of morality, no one is telling a teen to have sex. They could save this information for when they’re married. So, what real moral purpose does keeping them in ignorance keep? Are we using the excuse of religion for dealing with an uncomfortable issue — that our innocent children will one day engage in sexual activity.
What is elitist is to accuse someone of stupidity because they point out the irrational side of life and human nature and demur when you oh-so-rational brights insist you be allowed to fix it.
Well, what do you suggest? More shopping?
Hey, don’t knock shopping. Isn’t that how America ultimately triumphed in the Global War on Terror?
Who’s insisting that?
Just curious. Seems like you’re making stuff up.
I think Peter’s trying to confuse (or is confused about) the advancement of persuasive arguments with imposition and authoritarianism. It’s similar to the Conservative Party’s propaganda that the Liberals are insisting they be allowed to govern, which ignores the fact they’ve only ever done so when Canadians elect them.
I’ve never quite understood this train of thought. It seems that we’re suppose to be hostile to the Liberals for having the temerity to win and try to govern. Is that how it works? It may have started as a slam against the Libs’ presumptuousness or arrogance, but it’s since been warped into a ridiculous talking point that makes no sense at all.
Geez, slip out to the bathroom and you come back to find the agenda has shifted. Ti-Guy, only you could deflect an argument on the grounding of religion in modern America to another whine about Conservative Party propaganda.
RT:
Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens et.al. for starters. Lots more, including the ACLU and U.S. judiciary. This is largely an American debate, much affected by U.S. constitutional developments. That’s why they keep asking lower courts to rule on the origins of life. But c’mon, surely the growth in overall general antipathy to belief hasn’t escaped your notice?
Sharon:
I’m quite prepared to believe that abstinance-only programs are ineffective. (BTW, as you are obviously well-informed, tell me, how do you stretch out “don’t do it” into a whole programme?). As to the effectiveness of the others, surely you are aware of the objections that a whole host of factors are at play here and that correlation isn’t causation. But frankly, I doubt they cause anywhere near the sexual activity some traditionalists fear. Both sides overstate this one, but isn’t the issue less what does and does not work and more compulsion and parental choice?
Ti-Guy, only you could deflect an argument on the grounding of religion in modern America to another whine about Conservative Party propaganda.
I wasn’t deflecting it. I was being illustrative in explaining your confusion between persuasion and authoritarianism. And this is has been fundamental to Conservapublicans for quite some time now; in fact, it’s been a genius move on their part to pander to the unevolved, ignorant sentiment that views criticism, critique, better arguments or simple disagreement as imposition.
This is largely an American debate, much affected by U.S. constitutional developments.
So why did you bring into this discussion, then? When it comes to social issues, Canada and the US exist in different universes, despite some people’s confusion.
Peter — But c’mon, surely the growth in overall general antipathy to belief hasn’t escaped your notice?
So I guess that I should just ignore the fact that 65% of Canadians believe that man originated on the planet within the last 10,000 at the behest of God®.
Apparently, that escaped your notice.
Both sides overstate this one, but isn’t the issue less what does and does not work and more compulsion and parental choice?
The same could be said of a lot of things about parenting that society believes in having a say in. Seat-belts on children. How much physical discipline a parent is allowed to use on a child. Society interferes in parental choice in these matters by making some things mandatory and other things illegal.
Choosing to have your child opt out seems more fair than trying to push an abstinence agenda on teens.
As to the effectiveness of the others, surely you are aware of the objections that a whole host of factors are at play here and that correlation isn’t causation.
Correlation isn’t causation, but if we compare the two methods of sex education there’s a difference. If comprehensive sexual education made no difference than the results between abstinence and comprehensive sex ed would be the same.
Here’s one study to consider:
“The newest review, published in the September issue of Sexuality Research & Social Policy, is by Douglas Kirby, a senior research scientist at Education, Training and Research Associates, a non-profit in Scotts Valley, Calif. Kirby, who has studied sex education programs for decades, reviewed studies of nine abstinence programs and 48 comprehensive sex education programs.
“He says a couple of the abstinence programs showed “weak evidence” for delaying sex, but most did not delay initiation of sex. Nearly half of the comprehensive programs delayed first sex, reduced the number of partners and increased condom or contraceptive use. One-quarter of the 48 programs reduced the frequency of sex. “
RT:
I thought it was 65% of Albertans? Rest assured, we theocratic central Canadians think it’s a lot older.
But no they don’t, RT, at least not in the sense you are implying, which is that 65% have been exposed to natural evolution theory and have consciously rejected it in favour of young earth creationism. C’mon, not even 65% of Christians can be so described. It always comes as a frustrating shock to Darwinists to learn how little most folks know or care (or need to care) about this, just as few religious people spend much time on Genesis. Are you similarly freaked out by the number of Canadians who read their daily horoscope and think there is something to it?
Sharon:
The seat belt analogy is weak. There is no moral component to that debate except for a few frothing libertarians. A better analogy would be to assume that kids are going to smoke and drink anyway, so instead of telling them not do, we’re going to offer compulsory classes in how to smoke drink responsibly, including tips on the right way to make a good martini and clip a cigar. As to Dr. Kirby, bully for him, but his conclusions seem to suggest kids will rut if you tell them not to and not rut if you show them how to. Could be, you know kids. If so, I suggest we cheer them all on to a mass orgy and bring the teen pregnancy rate down to zero.
How did I ever get pinned into arguing about belief and sex education on the same thread?
(cue thuggee uprising)
KEvron
“Are you similarly freaked out by the number of Canadians who read their daily horoscope and think there is something to it?”
To jump in here, I would respond that, yes, I would be, if they were trying to teach astrology in science class.
“…we’re going to offer compulsory classes in how to smoke drink responsibly, including tips on the right way to make a good martini and clip a cigar”
I hope that isn’t the only possibility you can imagine to educate kids on responsibility. Is that your only alternative to a drug war built on ignorance and fear?
Well, it had to happen. Sooner or later I’d lose one in the moderation vortex.
As to Dr. Kirby, bully for him, but his conclusions seem to suggest kids will rut if you tell them not to and not rut if you show them how to. Could be, you know kids. If so, I suggest we cheer them all on to a mass orgy and bring the teen pregnancy rate down to zero.
It’s not a matter of cheering them on. Check out how the Nethelands approach to sex ed. There’s information on contraceptives and instruction on how to say no. I think most people would support a program like that.
However, it’s possible that teenagers simply respond, though, to real information. Some of the abstinence education actually reduces sex to stories of princess and knights. As a psychologist noted infantilization leads to dysfunction. Treat a teenager as though they’re capable of reason, that what they do has consequences, and they’ll probably make the right choices.
Crikey!
Sharon — I think the deliberate infantalization of people is part of the fascist agenda…