Janine’s Soap Box: Juan Willam’s Whining

Texas issue was a knee jerk reaction to overtones made in some textbooks to paint  a positive spin on the Islamic society while at the same time pointing out certain deficiencies in the Christian society. Honestly to speak of America one has to grapple with religion and it's impact on society, modern American society has taken such a twist it goes out of it's way to attack or silence it's native religion . Thomas Jefferson was adamant about protecting the freedom of choice in religion. Sadly most of his comments are taken up and used as a base for atheism, a fact he would have been abhorred to hear. He was not an atheist, just not enamored by organized religion and the influence that it dictated on European society. His ultimate goal was to establish a society where religion could be actively (or not) participated  without concern. The current atheist movement has taken that point  organized and pressed an absolute segregation on the practice in public places. That flies in the face of American constitutional rights.

Juan Williams points must be taken with a degree of salt. NPR  holds itself to certain standards, and I always thought it meant freedom of speech, obviously that is not true.  Is it a first amendment violation to speak one's mind  if it flies with a tinge of concern that others in a majority here might unconsciously and silently hold. Not having heard his comments I will hold my own opinion in reserve. He is accountable though for his publicly viewed opinions. Any employers is allowed to dictate acceptable practices,…we work at will accepting those standards, not with imbued rights.

The American fundamentalist movement definitely misses that crucial point. Jefferson's remarks were often directed towards the Christian right who were adamant at that time of creating a state religion. Jefferson wrote some some very persuasive points to dispel that movement,…as he noted America needed,…depended on the fundamental right to believe as you wanted without being dictated to prejudiced against by others. that is a point missing on the attack on religion the courts fail to take into account. In no way was the practice EVER to be prohibited, only that you could not be required to participate. 

but I agree with you on the Williams issue,…personal accountability. NPR has a certain right to make a stance on viewpoint which addresses an attack on anyone's religious viewpoint practice.

well it's a media station with a set agenda aligned with a political movement. THAT is the fear we all should have. Reeks of mind control…elements which which Europe to disaster 60 years ago. I listen to my ex in-laws spew this nonsense,…cringe and counter-point…

The vocal side is a minority,..but honestly I see their reaction,..as fair,…and a right to voice. Remember it is one station,..with a history and mandate to twist the truth to it's own agenda. Several years ago that station was under fire when reporters were fired for NOT twisting stories,…and fabricating facts to support the company viewpoint.

The sad part,..there are some shocking revelations of truth they do say,…but mired in the lies they are lost.

You brought the gay marriage issue up,..I have had this discussion at length with a gay friend of mine,too many nights of discussion and I would say that you and I would go on likewise for hours because my viewpoint on this is oriented and slanted towards the religious right.

However,.this is a point a definition the government needs to step from, distance because it has taken a religious overtone whether right or not. Issue domestic partner agreements to ALL (I think the French government does this),…leave marriage ceremonies to the churches,…be it gay or fundamental right, those ceremonies are religion at work, and should not be subject to government control.

I remember when Juan got fired….let me say this…if in a post 9-11 world you arent a lil edgy about CERTAIN muslim's appearance…youre braindead…Juan was just honest enough to admit it….keep in mind Janine as Americans we live in a society that branded John Wayne a racist because he killed Indians and Japanese in movies.(in which it was contextually accurate)…he stated he wouldnt vote for a black man until the educational opportunities were equal…..but when it was discussed they left out his equal statement…Fox news is always accused of being partial…that their hosts cut off people they disagree with….I say this with an educated mind….they dont do it anymore than cnbc msnbs or npr…I believe npr should have their funding stripped because in my opinion it is a luxury item and we dont NEED it….its not used in an educational fashion as public tv is…..now to the part that inspired me to post……….nowhere in the consitution are the words ''seperation of church and state''….Jeffersons ideal and the thoughts of the people that approved the constitution was this….we would not have a national religion…BUT…this didnt mean states couldnt have their own state religion…I think its shameful the constant attacks on the christian society…who led the abolitionist movement?….who led the civil rights movement?….wasnt a bunch of atheists…and before anyone thinks of spouting off about all the evil the catholic church did in their abuse of power keep in mind…..vikings raped and pillaged most of the known world at the time…they werent christians….people paint their picture of the world with their choice of brush…nothing will ever change that….

The problem with religion is that the rules it presents are from millennia back. In those days there was no government, so religion filled that niche. The rules they set were, for that time, sensible, as civilization was less complex and established in those days. They present basic rules that make living together in groups doable: don't kill each other, don't rob each other, respect each other, don't mess with someone else's spouse. Nowadays we have laws for that, they comes with civilization advancing and knowledge growing beyond the oldest of superstitions. Most of those laws even make sense, like the commandments did in the time they were given/made up.

However, human nature saw an opportunity in religion, a way to gain more power over others by saying “God/Yahweh/Allah/Buddha/[go on] told me that …”, which is how we ended up with stuff like “it's evil to show your ankles, hair, etc”. Cultural developments got sucked into religion, which conditioned it's believers into intolerance of anything that diverged from “their rules”. My guess is that burqa's originally had nothing to do with religion, in that time it was simply a way to prevent the beautiful and young women to be easily stolen by raiders or at least to even the odds to the chance that a raider broke his back trying to abduct an overweight mother of 6. However in today's situation it results in the males from that society being less able to deal well with women that do show flesh, hardly being able to realize that those women like looking good instead of like disguised barrels.

Even in modern western countries that have a lawful separation between state and religion religious parties try to force their views and rules into legislation, effectively trying to violate that separation. This, by the way, appears to be more rule then exception.

Before I get kicked off my soapbox and crucified and torched for heresy, I'm not especially anti-religious, but I do believe religion is a private thing, which is the way it should stay.