Skip navigation.
Home
IrnBru001.com
IrnBru001.com
Home

Fundamentalists

I too am Spartacus

Submitted by IrnBru001 on Sun, 02/18/2007 - 08:00.

The Edwards blogger thing is unfortunate. I'm a big fan of Pandagon, I even tried to write their wikipedia entry, but some rightwing-nuts deleted it.

Haven't read Shakespears's Sister as much but I've enjoyed what I've read.

I think its clear the media is at fault here. As long as they consider conservative talking points news worthy this stuff is going to happen.

What I'm not so clear about is how to feel about Edwards campaign. I mean they should have had a better understanding of the blogosphere before hiring bloggers. Pandagon is very unapologetic, snarky, and honest about their views. That is what has made Pandagon such a great blog.

It is clear that the public and the media still isn't ready to "take the gloves off" when dealing with the topic of religion. They still want to treat it as special and unquestionable. That is too bad.

Until we are able to discuss and criticize these institutions openly and critically, those who do question we be ostracized.

Old Comments:

lefty said...

so, blogs just can't have wikipedia entries or just not ones from liberals?

what's the story there?

IrnBru001 said...

They can but the "rules" for entries about blogs are so subjective that unless it is a huge major blog they can be deleted by just a few people working together. While I think wikipedia is a great tool, some of the editorial rules don't make a lot of sense. Pandagon, even before this, was a pretty major blog, wining some awards, mentions by magazines and acknowledged by many major political orgs (which seemed to completely fulfill the requirements), but it takes only one person to start a "article for deletion" process and once moving its very hard to stop. It seems in retrospect I was totally right that it deserved an entry. : )

»

More on the CNN story.

Submitted by IrnBru001 on Fri, 02/09/2007 - 08:00.

Richard Dawkins is appearing on CNN in response to the outrage cause by the clip I referred to below.

He will be appearing on the Paula Zahn show Monday the 12th (which is Darwin Day btw) hopefully to give voice to our outrage. I believe he will be on the 8EST show.

Here is part of the horrendous segment, for those who are too lazy to click the other day's link : ).


»

CNN's Bigotry

Submitted by IrnBru001 on Wed, 02/07/2007 - 08:00.

Ever wonder why I feel secularism is an important topic?

Watch this video and you may understand

It goes from bad, seeing the plight of two couple, to worse, a network giving intolerance a soap box.

Watch this and try for a moment to wear my shoes.

Old Comments:

Jenn of the Jungle said...

I have a "conservative" blog and blog talk radio show and have laid it out clearly that I am an atheist many times, and never had an issue with it. And no one's ever tried to convert me. In fact most of my commenters are very Christian. And still, no problems with it.

»

Who supports more troops?

Submitted by IrnBru001 on Wed, 01/10/2007 - 08:00.

approval

From Jesus' General

Old Comments:

Salihah صالحه said...

YIKES! LOL!

»

How it unfolded: Swearing in on the Quran

Submitted by IrnBru001 on Sun, 01/07/2007 - 08:00.

Newly elected U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) was sworn in on January 04. The right wing fundamentalists were up in arms when they heard what was going to happen. Rep. Ellison, the first Muslim elected to congress, wanted to use the Quran, and not the Bible, for his unofficial swearing in ceremony.

As I blogged early, my thoughts on this idea were mixed. As I stated the right wingnuts response was horrible, screaming of intolerance and fundamentalism.

My reservation were rooted in my deep belief in a secular society, regardless of the faith. But Rep. Ellison, handled the whole "controversy" with grace and class.

At this unofficial swearing in Rep. Ellison used a copy of the Quran once owned by the, great champion of Separation of Church and State, Thomas Jefferson.

The Wall of Separation provided a great quote from Rep. Ellison from the event.

“The very foundation of our nation, the authors of our Constitution impressed, is religious freedom, and the use of Jefferson’s Quran shows that the founders not only knew of the Quran but also used it,” Ellison said during his swearing-in ceremony.

While I still hope that some day, even in purely ceremonial, yet political events, we no longer feel the need to insert our personal religious believes. As the paradigm of American politics and society now stands, there would have hardly been a better out come.

Old Comments:

Nervous Rodent said...

Call me a hawk, but I have to agree. Ain't nothing wrong with a Muslim in Congress. In fact, I applaud it. It's about time our politics were based on logic and reason, rather than Christian religion. And to hold Jefferson's Quran just puts the cherry on the sundae.

Cassie said...

The constitution says that religion can't prevent someone from being in the government, so the people that object to Ellison and using the Koran are really un-patriotic.

IrnBru001 said...

RE Cassie: Well I wouldn't go that far that fast. Yes many who are screaming about how he should HAVE to use the bible are very un-patriotic, anti-American even... however suggesting as I do that religion should stay in the Church, heart and home... I don't see that as unpatriotic. I believe it will strengthen both the public sphere and the religious sphere.

ender said...

i agree ... ellison handled it with a great deal of class ... and so long as we're using any holy symbols to do these things ... what he did was just about perfect. :)

Salihah صالحه said...

As a Muslim myself, this interested me! However, I just don't think Bibles, Qurans, or whatever belong in our government. I understand it was an unofficial ceremony, but as my representative here in Minneapolis, I would have felt better he put his focus and oath on the constitution of the state and federal government rather than his faith. Sure, he is an individual, and entitled to his faith and beliefs, but a public officer is an office, not a person.

Just my opinion! But gosh, it is sooooo good to see a blogger not screaming bloody hell over a Muslim in politics! : )

Peace to you and yours

»

Happy New Year

Submitted by IrnBru001 on Mon, 01/01/2007 - 08:00.

More video cause I'm not feeling the muse.

This one is timely and from Pam Spaulding of Pandagon and Pam's House Blend


Old Comments:

cube said...

The muse can be elusive.

»

Swearing in on the Quran?

Submitted by IrnBru001 on Thu, 12/21/2006 - 08:00.

The right wing fundamentalists are up in arms over the fact that Minnesota congressman-elect will, in his unofficial ceremony, swear in on the Quran and not the Bible.

Now it's clear that the wing-nut outrage over this is nothing more then bigotry, and ethno-religious centrism. It isn't however clear what the appropriate response should be.

This is a tough issue for a committed secularist. How do I resolve the conflict between wanting a tolerant multi-cultural society, with my dislike of mixing religion and politics?

I am, on the one hand, disgusted and un-shocked, by the reaction of those on the extreme right. This is not a Christian country, and shouldn't be, but many don't realize the desire, by some, to make it one.

On the other hand it bothers me that any public official, Christian, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise, would take an oath of public office, regardless how ceremonial, on a religious text. There is, as enshrined in our constitution, no religious test for public office, let's not add one.

It is fine that Congressman-elect Keith Ellison is Muslim. There is no reason why a Muslim would be any less (or more) qualified to served as an elected official. As a democrat, and a Minnesotan, I'm thrilled he is in office. I would however prefer religion stay in the heart, and home....not in politics.

If this is truly to become a multicultural society, as I hope it will, we should be separating religion from politics entirely.

Old Comments:

Anonymous said...

I feel that this blog is offensive, you have no right to talk about Christians just as I have not right to talk about Muslims. You are not the one elected to office and you are not in congress so why does it bother you either way.

Or is it that you feel that yes we have the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion as long as it is your opinion. Well my friend it does not work that way.

As far as the teacher in the last post you wrote about , what he should have said was, on September 11,2001 none of the hijackers were Christians, and none of the people that are attaching bombs to themselves and killing innocent people and our troops are of the Christian community. That says it all right there. Merry Christmas and God bless you. Every time you look at a calender remember that you are looking a Christian based object. The calender is based on the Birth of Christ.

IrnBru001 said...

Why do I have no right to talk about Christians?

Jon said...

The the problem is this person wants to change the way that he is sworn in just be of his religion. The oath of office is a set in stone way of accepting the oath of office and just because he is a Muslim we shouldn't be changing the set rules, no more than we would allow an atheist not to lay their hand on the bible to swear into office. By the way you didn't have to explain that you were a Democrat, it is obvious by your post that you are a liberal and don't care much about traditions and rules

IrnBru001 said...

I care about the constitution which set a separation of church and state. Acts like (forcing religious beliefs on others) this undermine what it means to be American.

And for the record this is not the first time someone use a book other then the bible to swear in... or refused to swear in at all... and finally this is not an official act, it has no legal or governmental purpose.

Anthony Lemons said...

irnbru001: I have nothing but respect for your opinion, however, the United States was founded under the principles of the Holy Bible, and is a symbol of the principles this country was established under. It is not an issue of freedom of religion, it is about recognizing the pillars of which this country has stood on for centuries. Ellison may swear in on the Quran, but he needs the Bible present and needs to understand that the Bible is the basis of this free land. If one can not see that, than they will fail as a public servant. Great blog by the way. Merry Christmas.

IrnBru001 said...

Thats nothing more then revisionist history. America is not a Christian nation nor was it founded on the bible or the Christian faith. Learn your history. This post I did a while back gives some of the
relevant quotes. Other wise there are tons of good books on the subject.

Chandira said...

I feel that this blog is definitely non-offensive. ;-)

Absolutely.

I think though, that if this is his unofficial swearing in, it's fine. If it was the official one, I'd feel a little more like religion (any religion) ought to be kept out of it.

This country wasn't founded under any religion, that was the whole point of the constitution, wasn't it? I don't know, being a Brit, but this whole religion thing in this country is so damn weird.
I always wonder what all that intolerance, fear and ill-feeling has to do with Jesus.

Salihah صالحه said...

I'm with you! I'm a Muslim and I don't think any public official should be swearing on any religious text, Qur'an or otherwise. Even in a private ceremony, they are still doing it representing their office. They should be using the local laws, statutes, and constitution to fall back on as their guide and strength as a political officer...not their religion. When they are at home, they are an individual with their individual beliefs. But at work, they operate as as office, not an individual, and a public servant. It's about state not faith.

»

Public School teacher: Jesus or eternal damnation

Submitted by IrnBru001 on Tue, 12/19/2006 - 08:00.

“If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong,” Paszkiewicz was recorded as saying. “He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered you pains for you, and he’s saying, ‘Please, accept me, believe.’ If you reject that, you belong in hell.”

Yuck. Yet its the student, who has exposed this anti-American fundaments, who is getting the threats.

In this tale of the teacher who preached in class and the pupil he offended, students and the larger community have mostly lined up with Mr. Paszkiewicz, not with Matthew, who has received a death threat handled by the police, as well as critical comments from classmates.

Greice Coelho, who took Mr. Paszkiewicz’s class and is a member of his youth group, said in a letter to The Observer, the local weekly newspaper, that Matthew was “ignoring the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gives every citizen the freedom of religion.” Some anonymous posters on the town’s electronic bulletin board, Kearnyontheweb.com, called for Matthew’s suspension.

The First Amendment does not give special right to Christians. The teacher, in the public school system, is acting as a employee of the state. He is using his position of authority to establish a religion in a public place.

The First Amendment, in fact the American ideal, it to prevent the tyranny of the majority, especially in religious contexts. To forget this is un-American.

Ny Times via The Wall of Separation

Old Comments:

Deb said...

The employee should definitely use discretion when preaching in front of a class of many religions. I think the concept of showing "all" religions is not a bad idea, but the system has changed dramatically from praying in the classroom to steering away from it totally. Respect of one's religion is a huge thing- so if someone is going to use their authority to preach---then he/she should preach about every religion. It's only fair.

»

"pushing a particular virulent worldview down the throats of people who are helpless to argue against it,"

Submitted by IrnBru001 on Tue, 12/12/2006 - 08:00.

Guess who the quote is referring to, The US Military or Al Qaeda?

Unfortunately it's drawing a comparison between the two. From Yahoo, via TomPaine.com

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has suggested there is a core of Christian extremists in the U.S. Military and the Pentagon.

These empowered Fundamentalists (IMO they get this label for trying to undermine the separation of church and state) are "using their rank and influence to coerce soldiers and airmen into adopting evangelical Christianity"

Maybe the "there are no atheists in foxholes" saying is actually true. True because our service men and women are being forced to become Christians.

Old Comments:

Andy D said...

Is there any evidence that anyone is being forced to become Christians? Being a Christian myself, I can tell you there is no benefit at all to forcing someone to worship against their will. It has to be in their heart.


IrnBru001 said...

The org cited seems to believe there is. Check them out and decide for yourself.

»

The War on Christmas

Submitted by IrnBru001 on Sat, 12/02/2006 - 08:00.

This stuff amuses me. I've never understood this extreme paranoia the right-wing has. This notion that they are a persecuted minority and that the big scary secular progressives are out to destroy America.

Though it doesn't seem as bad as it was last year, the talking heads are still talking about it.

From MediaMatters:

On the November 29 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly continued to hype the so-called "war" on Christmas by claiming that retailers Best Buy and Crate & Barrel are "still ordering their people not to say, 'Merry Christmas,' " and that the stores "will fire" employees who do. O'Reilly also asserted that "ordering" employees "not to say 'Merry Christmas' " is "the worst kind of fascism you could possibly have." In fact, representatives of both stores have denied having policies that forbid employees to say "Merry Christmas" to customers.

Inclusiveness is fascism?

If Billo had done any research, say called the stores for a clarification, he would have found the facts. But he of course doesn't want the facts he wants to feel persecuted. Wants to legitimize the paranoia of this listeners.

I can understand why he does it. It sells. There real question is "Why are the fundamentalists so paranoid that they buy it?"

Old Comments:

theWatchList said...

It's always something. To be honest, the left has it's battles too.

This Happy Holidays thing is really really stupid though. Remember when we were younger and Happy Holidays just referred to that time towards the end of the year where we all pretended to be nice to each other (except the inlaws of course). It wasn't political and it wasn't a four letter word.

Everything is sitting behind some money driven agenda. O'Reilly can't not talk about it. Is FoxNews Friend John Gibson has that "War On Christmas" book out and they help each other promote books.

Benjamin Solah said...

I totally agree.

I think them portraying the idea that white Christians are some how a persecuted minority is just a ploy to drive racism against people of other cultures.

I really don't see Muslims getting upset over Christmas. My Muslim neighbour buys presents for his kids because he, like me being atheist, doesn't see it as a religious holiday and more a time of sharing and spending time with family.

The nutso Christians are just having a sook because no one wants to go to church anymore.

»
12next ›last »
Syndicate content