Dreams & Hopes

Computers and internet. Phone calls, instant messengers, emails, and web cameras. Hopes, dreams, desires and wishes. Falling stars and rising stars. Sunsets and sunrises.

These are things of modern life. Some primitive, some advanced; All the tools of romance and initial contact. The things that help make wishes come true.

Those are things that now take longdistnaces and bring them close; things that allow another far away to dig a trench into your soul as if they were making war on it. Tings neutral in and of themselves but can be used to destroy or to make peace; conquer or free.

Here they have been used to conquer, free, destroy, to diga trench and make peace; every way but all for the sake of a wish, a desire; both mutual. Through coincidence and accident a trench has been dug and a war is raging; a war that is destroying the old ideas-conquering the hearts and minds freeing them of past tortures. The war will end in peace. Peace frightens both sides.

What would this peace bring? What will it be? Will it be an alliance? Will it be the building of a wall? Will it be the silent wailing of destroyed souls? Will the peace be worth the risk?

Is this a war or is it something else? If not a war, then it must be a conversion. The trench is not for combat but for a foundation; a foundation for something large, something larger than life. A mission perhaps? A place to educate and provide comfort to these lost and lonely souls? May it be a home, a place for companionship; a place in which they might find compassion, caring and love? Or is it a prison? A place of torture, pain and suffering?

May it be that this foundation is growing and it will soon be larger than all of those combined? Shall it be for the building of a city? A city that will have all of them? Or will it be the foundation of a village? A village with a mission and a home; just a mission and home? A village where there will be no need of a prison?

Hopes, dreams, and desires. Hope for a home, dream of a mission, desire for both.

Hope for the lost and lonely to find a home and mission in one. Dream of peace, comfort, compassion, love, and passion. Dream, dreaming. Desire. Desire all these.

Let not the hard things destroy these hopes, dreams, and desires. Build a strong foundation that will with stand the earthquakes of life; strong walls to hold against the rain and winds; strong beams to support them. Build a strong house to withstand all.

Build high atop the world. On solid fertile ground that things may grow and be sustained. Build that it will last.

Religion and Politics: How the Right has gained power and Influence and is changing US Politics

This paper was inspired by debate in the media about how much influence the Moralist/Christian Right has and how it has gained such influence. It will suggest that this situation posses a danger to America and the world. It will discuss the potential threats and suggest ways to defeat or moderate the danger and threat.

To start with a bit of history, the first point will be the founding fathers statement on religion and government followed by the voter beliefs and ideologies. From there the discussion will move into voter statistics and the model used by the right and left to gain position and influence. From this it will discuss the dangers and threats.

In the article “The Great Debate of Our Season,” that appeared in Mother Jones in December 2005, the opening line is a statement from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion;” which has been considered the Founding Fathers’ statement of the “role of religion in our government”. The article talks about how religion has always been a part of this country and an aspect of its leaders but that even though a lot of the language of the time had religious overtones the state was not governing by religious motivation. The opening quote bluntly points out what the founding fathers thought about religious influence on the country’s government.

This piece of information is relatively unknown to most Americans. However, it is doubtful that it would make anyone change their minds on what precedence should be used to determine how the country is supposed to operate or legislate. In foreign policy matters it seems that the idea is to act as the virtuous savior. In the case of Iraq, this is quite evident. In the beginning the ruse was weapons of mass destruction, by the end and currently it was to overthrow an evil dictator, to save a country from its oppressor.

It seems today that this ideology is supported by voters as evidenced in the essay “Virtue Voters”, by Peter Augustine Lawler, which appeared in the journal Society in its May/June 2005 issue. As the title suggests, Lawler argues the current position of voters; they want a virtuous nation. His essay covers several facets of why, as he calls them, “virtue voters” voted for President Bush (1). The whole paper boils down to the idea that American’s want a virtuous nation. The idea is that we should legally live virtuously, or as Lawler puts it “to live well by living responsibly” or “[not] simply as a free individual” (1). He attempts to moderate his arguments by discussing points about liberals. He says that voters do not like how leftish liberals have become. He points to how liberals ignore their duty and let the courts decide legislation. Also, Lawler thinks that “virtue voters” are more moderate than they are conservative. He implies that “virtue voters” want to ward off the ultra libertarianism, to avoid the “birth dearth” and, ultimately, to avoid the ungodliness of Europe (4).

Here it can be argued that when one side goes too far in one direction the people tug it back toward the center. However, because of the scare the United States is giving the rest of the world with its full force jerk to the right, the United States has strained relations with other nations. This is because of the ideology of “Virtue Voters” and the platforms they vote for. The result will likely be that the rest of the world will be less forgiving of extreme action by the United States, such as the attack on Iraq and the probable attack on Iran. The next two essays show how these “virtue voters” have been swayed and how, what shall be called, the Moralist/Christian Right rose to the prominence it holds today.

In this essay, “Globalisation, theocracy and the new fascism: the US Right’s rise to power,” the authors, Carl Davidson and Jerry Harris, argue that the Religious/Moral Right has effectively taken control of the Republican Party. They point out that the Right has followed a particular strategy and taken steps to gradually motivate the culture toward its point of view. The points and ideas presented provide a profound insight of the works and methods of religious influence on society and politics. The authors give an outline that is taken from Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist theoretician of the 1920’s and early 1930’s. His ideas were originally presented as a means to further the communist ideology and movement. Since those days several theorists and political practioners have adopted it as a method to gain influence over society, culture and politics.

Here is the Antonio Gramsci’s outline mentioned: 1) “Identify the main enemy,” 2) “Build counter-theory,” 3) “Build mass communications,” 4) “Build base communities,” 5) “Build the counter-hegemonic bloc,” 6) “Take power in government,” and 7) “Radical reconstruction of society.” In the third part, the building of mass communications, Davidson and Harris provide a long list of personalities: Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage for the “New Right” representation. For the “Christian Right” we have Pat Robertson with his Christian Broadcasting Network, James Dobson and his radio show Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council (Davidson and Harris 7). In part five, the building of base communities, we find the grass roots aspect. Get into the homes, hearts and minds of the voters. The Moralist/Christian Right did this in the churches and through alliances such as the Christian Coalition. The most notable of these alliances would be The National Association of Evangelicals who, according to Davidson and Harris, encompasses some 45,000 churches and 30 million church goers. In part six we have the scariest part yet, take power in government. Davidson and Harris say that this has been done by taking over the GOP, or Republican Party. Here is what they quoted from James Dobson in a NPR appearance: “If they get disinterested in the values of the people who put them in office as they have done in the past, if that happens again, I believe the Republican Party will pay an enormous price in four years and maybe two” (8). Davidson and Harris have a couple more quotes from Dobson as well, but this one summed up the argument well enough. The Moralist/Christian Right has effectively taken over one of our nation’s political parties, or so they think.

Moving on to point seven we have the radical reconstruction of society. This one, at least how Davidson and Harrison view it, is the end result of point six. They believe that this is likely to come about from the changing of the constitution and law. We have already seen an attempt at this with President Bush’s move to amend the constitution to defend marriage and outlaw homosexual union. Now it should be noted, in the interest of fairness, that the left has used this same scheme through the use of arts, broadcast and print communication, and through the education systems. But they have become soft in its use, there by, giving the right its chance to use it and succeed.

This success is evident in the voter turn out and victory of President George W. Bush. The Economist article “The Triumph of the Religious Right,” which was in the November 13^th, 2004 issue, provides the details of the election and the demographics but first a summation the article. It discusses how the left-wing was shocked by the moralist/Christian right’s ability to gain enough votes to decide the election. It also discusses the figures of moralists/Christians and points out they are not in fact a majority. Following this it provides evidence of how evangelical, moralist, and Christian groups are trying to influence policy and law.

The voting statistics show that the moralists accounted for only 22% of the total voter turnout (2), which is down from 40% in 1996 and 35% in 2004 (2). The Economist argues that during past elections there wasn’t a recession or the war on terrorism to divide voters’ attention (2). But it still says that “it was remarkable [that] a fifth of voters were still concerned about moral maters” (2). At the end Economist provides a chart of opinions taken from different religious orders. This chart has 7 points. The points that are particular to this paper are
“religion is important to political thinking, and Organized religious groups should stay out of politics” (6). The average percentage in support of “religion is important to political thinking” is 40% with “Evangelical Protestants, Traditionalist” leading with 81%; for the point “Organized religious groups should stay out of politics” the average was 45%; Evangelical traditionalists bring up the rear at 25%. Overall, this suggests that Evangelical Christians, at least those leaning to tradition, think they should be involved and have religion being the primary motivator for legislation. This makes one ask the question: Where will it lead too?

All of the Christian/Moralist ideas suggest a path of clear and present danger to the ideas of the United States Founders and the ideas of Enlightenment. Once it is understood that the Right has captured a greater share of the culture of the United States, this is evident. It is obvious when one looks back at history to the days of Cesar. Cesar thought of himself as a god, and later as the Manager of God’s creation. He mandated that all of his subjects had to be Christian and Catholic. Throughout the middle ages, the same story if the king, queen or emperor was catholic then so were his or her realm and subjects. Following this history has shown that theocracy’s, oligarchies, and dictatorships cause upheaval and crusades. In effect if our country continues down the path it is on it is not too far a stretch of the mind to conclude that the United States will become an imperialistic theocracy. In effect it always has, at least, been an imperialistic nation. We took land from the Native Americans, from Mexico. Through the various wars we have gained territories including parts the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. In other parts of the world we have gained influence over several third world countries through economic means and military actions.

It can, now, be difficult to argue that the United States has no imperial ambition. The only way to think it doesn’t is to cut one’s self off from any mode of independent thought. For the side of theocracy, we are at a cross roads. Several paths appear to be before the United States. It can go forward and become a completely Christian theocracy, go slightly to the right and become a virtuous oligarchy; go slightly left and become what one could describe as the attitude of the 1960’s and 1970’s, the moderation of morals and liberties, or turn to the immediate left and become a secular nation where religion is something you don’t publicly announce.

However, in the essay “The New-Time Religion” by Jonah Goldberg in the May 23^rd 2005 issue of the National Review, a new argument can be found. Goldberg brings in a counter point to the religious right’s rise to power. He argues that liberalism has become like a religion and that the left has nothing more to say because all of the good ideas have already been spoken of. Therefore, liberals are left with nothing to forward now, thus turning into a group that just repeats old rhetoric. He argues that conservatives still have plenty of good ideas that they can bring forth and continue to debate and discuss. This piece is used to show how both sides are trying to ‘one up’ each other and to bring in the perspective that religious ideas and thoughts break through in just about all aspects of American culture.

Goldberg brings up an interesting point when it comes to who is calling whom a religious zealot or moralist. When listening to liberals talk we do hear much that is repetitive and very little of anything new. Once, liberals were the creative thinkers, the ones to bring new ideas to the table. Now, they are purely reactionary. No one seems to find something new or a different perspective to any problem or question that comes about. It is difficult to avoid thinking that liberals are original. It can also be argued that liberals are falling into the rut of classicism; Retelling the same story over and over, studying only one line of thought. There hasn’t been a new theory, idea or platform in decades that hasn’t been in reaction to the conservative side of the house. So, now, we have a state that is due for a revolution.

We need new thinkers and moderates. People, who can think about a problem from multiple angles, think up solutions for each angle and take the best average between them. In no way can the United States function under mob rule or minority rule. It has to appease both sides but also remain tough on points that neither side can agree on. That is part of the history of the Constitution. It came because of Mobs of debtors running on the Continental Congress demanding something be done to limit or put creditors at bay. The economy was still trying to come up after the Revolutionary War and the States still had most of the power. The leaders of most states were also the creditors and they weren’t about to make any kind of settlement. In the end, there was almost a second revolution, hence the secret meetings to draft the Constitution.

In the end, it may be best to hold another Constitutional Convention and redraft it to fit with modern ideals and language. If it is to be considered living document, then lets bring it out of its infancy and take to at least the level of a fourth grader. It is time to establish guidelines and rules based on what the United States has gone through in its 217 years of life.

Where Did They Come From?

I was sitting around one day watching the news, looking through websites and thinking about the Idaho Legislature’s recent attempt to define marriage and ultimately ban gay marriage. I asked this question: How does our government rule or vote; on a religious or a civil basis? I asked this because everything I was hearing or reading about their arguments had a religious overtone or were blatantly religious. Since this is an issue that struck really close to home I said “hey lets see what I can find.” I found almost too much material; but I didn’t want to go with just the overall aspect of religion in government, primarily because this paper would end up being a book, so I tried to find articles that discussed the top issues where religion is playing a big part.

I found three articles, two of them are six pages long, and it meant a lot of reading. But I found a lot of interesting things in them. They both appeare in the Economist. “The Triumph of the Religious Right” (Econ A) appeared on November 11^th, 2004 and “You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet” (Econ B) appeared on June 25^th, 2005. The third article I found is much shorter, just two pages, and appeared in Mother Jones (M. Jones) under the title “The Great Debate of Our Season” in the December 2005 issue. All three of these articles discuss how Christians are influencing Federal and State level government.

“The Triumph of the Religious Right” presents data from the 2004 Presidential Election concerning the Christian vote. It is introduced by a quote from “A Confederacy of Dunces” written by John Kennedy Toole. The quote talks about a Presidential candidate that goes to a gay party and finds a wrestler teaching judo holds to the attendees. After seeing one of the demonstrations the candidate remarks ‘I can see that we’re going to have a great deal of trouble capturing the conservative rural red-neck Calvinist vote”(Econ A 2). This leads to the point the article makes “the conservative rural red-neck Calvinist vote has captured America” (Econ A 2) The next paragraph mentions the how the left-wing was “dismayed” by the Christian right’s ability to gain enough votes to decide the election (Econ A 2). The article then goes on to discuss how different America and Europe are when it comes to religion and government. It moves into the argument that the moralists/Christians were not in fact a majority, presenting figures and polling information. Following the poll figures, the discussion turns to associations and the leaders of the evangelical, moralist, Christian groups that are trying to influence policy and law. After the associations, the discussion goes into these groups and the religious leadership, which the article says is not there (Econ A 3-4). The religious right as a whole operates in a disjointed, grassroots fashion. Then the article turns back to presidential elections and how the religious/moralist right will influence the President’s actions and policies. From there the article pretty much stays with political influence and discusses various points where the religious/moral right would support some liberal ideas and policies.

After reading this article I found my self curious to know why so many voted for Mr. Bush. I also became concerned by the fact that such a majority of people in this country knowing Mr. Bush’s allegiances could support such narrow minded views and limited speaking ability. I am a tolerant person. I style myself as a moderate because I believe in balance. I do not understand why people have to be extreme in matters that can easily be compromised on. Gay marriage for one, I can agree that marriage is a religious institution, which, therefore, should not be something the government can get involved with, but since it is traditionally considered a social and mainstream thing I won’t argue that point. What I would ask is that if marriage is religious and socially accepted as between a man and a woman, why then can’t the government leave marriage to the church and balance things making everything in a marital fashion a civil union in the law’s eyes? This article blabs on about the numbers and the general complaint of many about how religion is getting mixed up in politics and showing that there isn’t a majority with the religious right.

Despite that these two articles came from the same source the next one presents a better argument as far as the role of religion in politics.

“You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet” (Econ B) is the second Economist article; it discusses several aspects of the religious right’s growth and power base. The article opens with the point that President Bush affirms that his values are the same as those of the religious right. The next paragraph takes a wide swing to point out that in the 1960’s the government was primarily secular and now is swinging toward what can be called a “theocracy” (Econ B 2). However, the rise in the involvement of the religious right in government and the increase in bitter partisanship are connected, according to John Danforth (Econ B 2). This trend of bitter partisanship is likely to continue and so is the continuation of the religious influence on national policy. To this point we have only seen “skirmishes” but with the passing of time the battle will heat up (Econ B 2). Following this introduction is a section titled “In the Beginning” that discusses how the religious right is stepping into the lime light. The first paragraph of this section presents some curious numbers which show that 75% of the population used to consider themselves as strongly religious compared to today’s 60%. The factor that is contributed to the change is the shift in religious demographics; liberal churches are declining while the conservative churches are gaining. However, the part that makes the religious right so strong is their “confidence” (Econ B 2). Another factor that is causing this change is that the Born-again Christians are no longer just “rural hicks” but becoming increasingly “Ivy League” (Econ B 2). After making this point it moves to show that not all of the religious right is white, it points out that there are significant numbers of other ethnicities joining the right. Also, the right isn’t just made up of evangelicals, but also Catholics and Orthodox Jews. The next section is titled “The power of organization”. It starts off with the argument that some of the Christian rights’ arguments are correct, one that is given concerns “’liberal activist judges’ exceeding their mandate” (Econ B 3). The section goes on to say that these liberal judges have provoked the religious right to pull together. The discussion then moves into how the right has organized and what they are doing. Some of the groups have formed political action committees and started dumping lots of money into the political system (Econ B 3). However, despite the right’s gaining influence, they are compromising on some issues because of public opinion. The section ends with the discussion of the right’s co-ordination efforts. Some have built non-profit organizations such as “The Arlington Group” which is a coalition of some 60 pro-family groups” (Econ B 3). Following this is a section titled “Can’t always get what you want?” that discusses how the right still represents a minority point of view and the one pitfall point the right has. “Some leaders of the religious right think they are far more powerful than they actually are” (Econ B 4). Even though the right has gained much influence the administration doesn’t have to follow each step in their dance but seems to still follow the right’s band. The administration gets away with this because of the broad power base that the local groups provide and the need to avoid alienating the leftish voters. Another limiting point for the right is public opinion. However, the right does seem to have support on at least one issue, but this support is limited, gay marriage. The people support it at state level but don’t really like the idea of “changing the constitution” (Econ B 4). Some of the factors that are guiding and tempering the right’s movements are things like young members with more liberal ideas and scandal. However, something that may give a kick to the right’s momentum is the courts; should the courts overturn any of the current gay amendments and statutes. This isn’t too likely because the courts are gaining younger and more conservative appointees, thus giving a long run for conservatism. Coming up after all of that is the mirror argument that the right could over-reach. But, because of the right’s movement into the lime light they have all but forced the left to get religious because of the publics’ apparent view that religion is less “weird” than secular (Econ B 5).

What caught me in this article is the discussion of how the right isn’t that big, numbers wise. Just as presented in the first article, “The Triumph of the religious right,” evangelicals and other traditional Christians are actually a minority group. These two articles just help to support a general theory simply put is thus “the loudest voice is the one that is heard.” This really scares me because I fall into a minority that is pretty loud but isn’t being heard so well. I think that is contributing to the general defeatist attitude that I am seeing and hearing amongst my friends and associates. I can understand their point of view because of how overwhelming the right wing seems to be. Probably the most disturbing piece from this article would be that the public seems to now view that religion is less weird than secular (Econ B 5). How, when and why did this happen? I guess I will have to do some more looking into this.

This next essay shows that our government was not founded on religion.

“The Great Debate of Our Season” opens with a statement from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” (M. Jones 1); which has been considered the “Founding Fathers’” statement of the “role of religion in our government” (M. Jones 1). The article talks about how religion has always been a part of this country and an aspect of its leaders but that even though a lot of the language of the time had religious overtones the state was not governing by religious motivation. Mother Jones discusses the history of the religious movement. The discussion starts with how the 19^th Century evangelicals lobbied for a secular government to protect them from an overwhelming majority of traditional groups. The opposition felt that secularism in government was a flaw rather than a benefit. Mother Jones believes that these groups are now gaining ground. This article argues that they gained this ground by quietly campaigning through networks of “political pulpits, media outlets, funding organs, and think tanks” (M. Jones 2).

From this article I gather that my main theory is correct. That theory is this: religion has been making a major effort, though relatively quiet, to influence government. The Mother Jones article shows something of a time line of this action. However, I would have to say that religion hasn’t just worked on influencing the governance of the country but of society. In Mother Jones’ article an inference can be made that they are also influencing society at the ground level to accept its influence in the management of the country and society. The resulting culture, in my opinion, is one that is closed minded. In the end I see a revolution of sorts coming.

The amount of pressure being placed on major social things such as abortion and “gay rights,” among some of the more controversial aspects, is growing to the blowing point. Eventually something will break and bring about some major changes. I would hope and generally think that people will resist some of this pressure but I doubt the resistance will be strong enough to block it from some violent reaction. Though, the form of violence that comes, I am not sure. I hope it will be more of a rhetorical debate. However, at this moment I don’t really know what to think for sure. I plan to do a lot of research on this subject in the future and use it for my research paper.