PoliSat Rhymes about Religion (Political Satire at PoliSat.Com TM ©)

Tsunami Theology as Wrath of God-- Fundamentalist Clerics Ride Tsunami Wave onto Shoals of Medievalism.

Given the abundant evidence of the medieval mentality of so many fanatically fundamentalist Muslim clerics, it's certainly not a shock that many of them have crafted "wrath of God" explanations for the December 26, 2004, earthquake that caused the Tsunami, which, if there were to have been in place a Tsunami warning system comparable to the one in the Pacific, would have caused a tiny fraction of the casualties (although just as much damage to property and ecology). However, it is a shock when ostensibly modern thinkers such as Joe Scarborough give a platform to ostensibly modern Christians expressing comparable "wrath of God" explanations for a disaster so easily understood (though certainly not easily predictable) by anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge.

At a time when modernity is engaged in mortal combat with medievalism, backsliding into pre-modern thinking is both foolish and dangerous. Each group begins competing for the prize in devising the most "plausible" theory about what group of people's behavior was so offensive that a Creator would manipulate a natural disaster to slaughter the innocent in order to punish the guilty. One would expect the Creator would have "smarter" smart-bombs than modern technology has developed and thus have not only the power, but also the moral inclination, to do a better job at distinguishing between the "sinner" and the "righteous" than smart-bombs distinguish between military targets and innocent civilians.

I'm confident that the vast majority of modern Christians (and probably a majority of Muslims) don't subscribe to such medievalist "theology," which is why I found it so bewildering that Scarborough has twice devoted part of his program to serious consideration of such "theology." One can understand how pre-modern people struggling to interpret aspects of phenomena beyond their comprehension tended to construct theological explanations. One can also understand how modern people embrace theological explanations for the Cosmos as a whole given the fact that science cannot yet (and may never) provide a definitive explanation. However, one has difficulty understanding why modern people would continue attempting to construct theological explanations for phenomena that science does understand.

It reminds me of the off-hand comments about 9-11 initially made by Jerry Falwell implying a "wrath of God" theory. Not only has Pat Robertson has made comparable comments, but several years ago he credited "prayer" for sparing Virginia Beach the effects of a devastating hurricane-- ostensibly, the Creator is a Virginian but wasn't too fond of New Jersey, where the hurricane wreaked havoc after turning away from Virginia Beach. I'm all for religious tolerance but not for equating medieval theology with modern theology. Such "wrath of God" explanations for natural disasters are as offensive as the Secular Fundamentalists' intolerance towards modern theology. Although I'm a non-theist, I've often defended the exercise and expression of religious faith against intolerant, bigoted attacks by Secular Fundamentalists. However, in a society that values freedom of expression and religion, for adherents to modern theology (as well as ecumenically-minded non-theists) to remain silent in the face of such medieval theology would be to act as enablers.

Links Box for:

Jan. 08, 2005 #01 Daily Update at PoliSat.Com, where satire is always commentary, but commentary isn't always satire.™

Title: Tsunami Theology as Wrath of God-- Fundamentalist Clerics Ride Tsunami Wave onto Shoals of Medievalism.

Permanent link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2005/du0501-01--10.htm#20050108-01.

Temporary 30-day news-link: http://polisat.com/DailyPoliticalSatire-Commentary/du20y05m01d08-01.htm.

Permanent link to animation for this Daily Update: http://PoliSat.Com/Images/TsunamiTheology.gif .

For links to the latest Daily Updates, Animations, Song-Parodies, Limericks, Palindromes, Archives, Site-Index/Search, go to http://PoliSat.Com.

..
Nov. 13, 2003: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2003 · (posted Nov. 15) ·
Fringes on Binges. .. ·

It's time that the gentle majority
of Christians rebuke the minority
of brethren who show
how little they know
of how Christians made our¹ majority.

And likewise, it's time the majority
for secular moral authority
inaugurate shunning
of Secular Fundies²
for mocking the Christian majority.

A small, but quite vocal, minority
of Christians disgrace the majority
by strident demands
that government hands
applaud them as moral authorities.

And likewise, the Secular Fundies,
too haughty to ever speak humbly,
incessantly spew
the bigoted view
that Christian believers are dummies.

The fate of America hinges
on forthright rejection of fringes--
Sectarian Fundies
and Secular Fundies
on bigoted, arrogant binges.

Rejecting the fringes of arrogance
of theo-and-ideo-narrowgance³
exemplifies best
the freedom professed
as Faith that's uniquely American.

The classic'ly lib'ral Joe Lieberman,
and Dubya, the NeoCon Ev'ryman,
instead of Bill Moyers
or Judge Moore supporters,
show Faith that's uniquely American.
···
·Inspired by the obstinate refusal of the secular fringe (best personified by Bill Moyers) to acknowledge the pivotal role that American Christianity played in our Constitution's enshrinement of freedom of religion as a human right and the fanatical zeal of the sectarian fringe (best personified by the now-former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore) seeking enshrinement of Christianity as the foundation of our system of government.
¹·As a non-believer, I consider "our majority" to be the majority of Christians, Jews, Muslims and non-believers dedicated to the uniquely American view that government should neither favor one religion over another nor exhibit overt hostility toward religious views not incompatible with the American principle of religious tolerance. Although religions other than Christianity benefit from this uniquely American principle, Christianity (as it had evolved in America by the time of our Constitutional Convention)-- not any other religion-- invented this uniquely American principle. That Christianity played such role is indisputably worthy of historical and commemorative recognition, which Secular Fundies blindly refuse to recognize. However, Christianity's having played such role did not render it the "foundation" of our government notwithstanding Sectarian Fundies' contentions to the contrary.
²·To understand why I coined the term "Secular Fundies" and what the term means, go here.
³·I'm coining the term "narrowgance" to define the mindset exemplified by the arrogant narrow-mindedness exhibited by (a) secularists suffering the conceit that their broadmindedness renders their beliefs inherently superior to anyone embracing sectarian beliefs and (b) sectarians suffering the conceit that their theological beliefs constitute infallible articulations of the "Will" of the Creator.
--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.·
Direct link for this Update: · http://polisat.com/du2003/du031130.htm#20031113-01 · ™©2003 .
| Get Political-Satire Daily Updates by email | Become a PoliSat.Com Affiliate | Tell a friend about us | Search Polisat.Com |
| Index to recent Daily Updates | Index to Archives of Daily Updates | View most recent animation | Index to Animations |
..
..
Oct.23, 2003: PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01 (posted Oct. 24)·· ™©·2003 ··
To those who berate expressions of faith with zeal that exemplifies hate: ..
·

Before I proceed I concede
in God I am lacking belief,
but yet I concede
religious beliefs
help many be better than me.

The Secular Fundies* are baying
at Boykin for truthfully saying
our state as nation
of Christian creation**
is why we are targets for slaying.

The Secular Fundies ignore
a co-equal goal for the war
by Muslim Fanatics
with terrorist tactics:
That secular rule be destroyed.

Instead of attempting to smear
the faith that the Gen'ral holds dear,
they ought to confess
the Faith he professed
created the freedom we cheer.

And thus they could help us to show
American Christians oppose
religious oppression
and favor protection
of Islam's religious tableau.

The Secular Fundies' profession
of fear that the Gen'ral's expressions
make Muslims distrust us
are hollow and pompous
in light of their cronies' expressions.

When one of their idols named Ted***
with arrogant pompousness read
his claims we proceeded
to war 'cause we're greedy,
their silence spoke "dittos" with Ted.

They're blind to the self-contradiction
of what they profess as their mission
in claiming the gen'ral
by statements had kindled
distrust of our stated intentions.

Their argument speciously claims
by Faith can our motives be stained
but not by contentions
that greed is our mission
and not freedom's goal we proclaimed.

Should Boykin have better expressed
the Faith he so proudly professed?
Of course, just as Ted
should shut-up his head
and stop claiming greed is our quest.
···
Despite being a non-believer, I found the most recent example of Ted Kennedy's typically recklessly and morally irresponsible claims (i.e., his recent speech on the Senate Floor claiming that Bush and his cronies plotted the war in Iraq for their own greedy interests and falsely claiming Bush described the danger posed by Hussein as an "imminent threat" rather than "gathering danger") to pose a far greater danger of instilling distrust of our motives among Moslems than statements by Lt. General William G. Boykin focusing not on Muslims generally but on fanatical Muslims he likened to the "hooded" people who defiled Christianity as much as the terrorists are defiling Islam. Furthermore, I construe Secular Fundamentalists' silence about Kennedy's highly inflammatory demagogic rhetoric as evidence that they share the irresponsible, reckless and hateful beliefs his speech exemplified.
·*·I use the term "Secular Fundies" to describe the anti-religious non-believers whose thinking is too shallow to comprehend that they've made their "non-belief" into their own fundamentalist creed with a zealotry that even the Iranian Mullahs could admire.
·**·In all of human history, what is the one religion that played the most pivotal role in the creation and nurturing of the first system of laws based on freedom of religion, free speech, liberty, due process, human rights, etc.? Can you say "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian"? So what if Dark Ages Christians and Muslims treated each other with barbarism. It's Muslim fanatics, not Christian generals, who are trying to resurrect the barbarism of the Dark Ages. If that's not "evil," what is?
·***·See my comments about Kennedy in the text preceding the single-asterisk footnote."
--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com.·
Direct link for this Update: · http://polisat.com/du2003/du031031.htm#20031023-01 · ™©2003 .
| Get Political-Satire Daily Updates by email | Become a PoliSat.Com Affiliate | Tell a friend about us | Search Polisat.Com |
..
··
Aug. 21, 2003: PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2003 ··
In Court, Judge Moore poses for role as Judge Moses...

Before I proceed I concede
in God I am lacking belief,
but yet I concede
religious beliefs
help many be better than me*.

I also concede Ten Commandments
for laws were historic'ly candent
as civilization
matured into nations
and Man became morally scandent.

I further concede a foundation
for freedom was Tom's Declaration
that rights weren't allowed
but rather endowed
to each upon each's Creation.

However, when passion subsided
on being from England divided,
our Forefathers grasped
the sobering task
of joining what doctrines divided.

Though nationhood instincts were nascent,
the Founders for years remained nescient
on how to emerge
from doctrines diverse
to form what would last as a nation.

On learning a loose federation
did not form the bonds for a nation,
for bonding a union
a new Constitution
they authored for founding a nation.

In contrast to Tom's Declaration
the document founding our nation
omitted assertions
that rights of a person
arose from an act of Creation.

Twas not that they'd ceased to believe
but rather their wisdom perceived
that law shouldn't choose
the doctrinal views
that citizens "ought" to believe.

Such wisdom embraced prohibition
of law to establish religion
by Congress at first,
then states were deterred
from breaking the same prohibition.

Though leftist political junkies
disparage the Doctrinal Fundies,
they're deaf to the tones
of hymns of their own
they're singing as Secular Fundies.

If Moore had displayed in the lobby
the Code of the King, Hamurabi,
as ancestor to
the laws we construe,
the hearts of the Left would be throbbing.

Display of such Code to be seen
as part of the fibers of strings
of hist'ry that led
to justice we've bred
would not be "endorsement" of kings.

But motives that Moore's been explaining
as grounds for his action displaying
the ancient Commandments
appear more than candent--
implying it's faith he's displaying.

But Moore's stubborn conduct is fraying
the sensible grounds for displaying
Commands that inspired
mankind to aspire
to frameworks of laws for obeying.

That Moore made a choice to defy
the fed'ral court's ruling belies
his claiming his motive
included promoting
respect for the law in men's eyes.
····
I think religious zealots and secular zealots deserve each other. Although I'm a non-believer, I find much to admire and respect in courage, nobility and selflessness exhibited by many in trying to live the spirit of their religious faith. I detest the arrogant self-righteousness of the anti-religious zealotry of those I would classify as Secular Fundamentalists. Despite the transparently religious motives of Judge Moore in placing the granite display representing the Ten Commandments, it's a historical fact that those Commandments played a large historic role in the moral evolution of Man's willingness to conform his behavior to a standard of law rather than merely the rule of the jungle. To construe symbolic display of the Commandments on public property as governmental "establishment" of Judaism or Christianity or Deism is to demand that public displays must avoid attributing human progress to religion even when such contribution is historically demonstrable. Yet Moore's behavior mocks the high principles he claims just as the attitudes of the Priests of Political Correctness reveal about their own Secular Fundamentalism. Am I alone? I hope not. ·*·Poetic license allows me to substitute the grammatically incorrect object-pronoun "me" for the the subject-pronoun "I." --Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com. ·
Direct link for this Update: · http://polisat.com/du2003/du030831.htm#20030821-01 · ™©2003 .
| Get Political-Satire Daily Updates by email | Become a PoliSat.Com Affiliate | Tell a friend about us | Search Polisat.Com |
..
··
Nov. 12, 2002: PoliSat.Com's Political Satire/Commentary Daily Update #01·™©·2002··
Attacks on Sectarian Fundies by Moyers, the Secular Fundie.·
·
    Though Moyers with PBS funding
    is mocking Sectarian Fundies,
    he cannot transcend
    and can't comprehend
    his status as Secular Fundie.

    The mirror of views he condemns
    reveals quite a lot about him:
    He seeks absolution
    through redistribution
    and sings pantheopian* hymns.    [*panth-ee-oh-pee-un.]·
·
    Inspired by Bill Moyers' November 8, 2002, PBS-funded commentary. He caricatured Bush as: (1) a dangerous religious fundamentalist (despite Bush's consistent advocacy of an ecumenical approach seeking to harmonize the humanitarian threads woven into all major religions), (2) an economic oppressor desiring to "transfer wealth from working people to the rich," and (3) a planet-plunderer determined to "eviscerate the environment."
    The shrillness of Moyers' commentary betrays his own fundamentalist mentality as a worshiper of secular fundamentalism. It's true that religious fanaticism killed millions over the millennia of recorded history, but within a single century secular fanaticism (Bolshevism, Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism) equaled, if not surpassed, such barbarity. Even though history has shown the latter to be as dangerously inimical to human freedom as the former, secular fundamentalists like Moyers seem obsessed with the former and relatively oblivious to the latter.
    Not being a theist, I hold no brief for religious fundamentalists, but as a rationalist, I also hold no brief for atheistic fundamentalists' pseudo-scientific, leap-of-faith assertions that rational analysis negates the possibility of a Creator. Such atheistic fundamentalists misconstrue rationality and the scientific method as though absence of evidence were evidence of absence. (Absence of evidence may be evidence of absence only when presence unaccompanied by evidence would be impossible.)   It seems to me that despite Bush's profession of what many consider to be a fundamentalist Christian faith, he has exhibited a far more tolerant and enlightened view towards other faiths and atheists than have the latter toward him.
    Moyers' assertion that Bush wants to "transfer wealth from working people to the rich" is a secular fundamentalist liturgy employing Orwellian language to clothe collectivist, class-warfare goals in populist rhetoric. Condemning across-the-board tax cuts for disproportionately "benefiting" the "rich" compared to those paying comparatively little, or no, income tax makes as much sense as condemning an antibiotic for disproportionately benefiting those suffering severe infection compared to those suffering mild infections or none at all.
    Moyers accuses Bush of being willing to "eviscerate the environment"-- i.e., to allow oil companies to drill in ANWAR, to allow loggers to thin trees and undergrowth in national forests, to refuse to join the Kyoto accords, etc.. Such shrill accusation is a manifestation of Moyers' fundamentalist faith in the political-science agenda of the pantheopians, the Priests of the Greenhouse Beliefs and the Ministers of Ozone.
--Jim Wrenn, Editor@PoliSat.Com..
Direct link for this Update:  ·http://polisat.com/du2002/du021130.htm#20021112-01··™©2002.
| Get Political-Satire Daily Updates by email | Become a PoliSat.Com Affiliate | Tell a friend about us | Search Polisat.Com |
..

It's proper and fit for wives to submit! (limerick 20001020-01)
    Remember ex-President Carter?
    He used-to think Baptists were smarter,
    but now he decries
    what they say to wives
    implying that husbands are smarter.
    He listens to Rosalyn Carter
    who tells him that women are smarter
    but both misconstrue
    what Baptist wives do:
    They really ain't dumber; they're smarter.
    The last Southern Baptist convention
    said wives must submit to their husbands,
    but all of those wives
    already comply
    'cause what they submit are instructions.
© 2000 --Inspired by a 10-20-00 CNN report that Jimmy Carter severed his ties with the Southern Baptist Convention because it adopted resolutions opposing women as ministers and asserting that wives must "submit" to their husbands. I don't know about Jimmy, but my wife has always submitted to me-- she submits instructions at the beginning of each day and especially on the weekends.

Give us democracy-- not a theocracy (limerick 20000803-01)
    Since Keyes has a mind that's adept
    you'd think he would learn to accept
    that we want democracy* --
    not a theocracy,
    and that's why behind he was left.
    And Falwell, it's your right to say
    just how you think folks should behave.
    It's okay to teach,
    but not smart to preach
    while on a political stage.
    And Robertson, give us a break.
    Your preaching is quite hard to take.
    When we want your views,
    we'll sit in your pews
    to learn all the things you berate.
    And lib'rals who claim they don't preach
    adore ev'ry left-leaning priest
    and do not berate
    the church mixed with state
    by bishops with whom they agree.
    'Though Dubya professes his strengths
    derive from religious beliefs,
    he seems to eschew
    intolerant views
    and says that for God he can't speak.
© 2000 --Inspired by 08-02-00 Washington Post/AP story that Alan Keyes claims the party "snubbed" him by not providing him a visible role at the convention. Also inspired by the belief that although preachers have free-speech rights to express their theological views in political contexts, they should be wise enough to realize that doing so can easily be counterproductive since most Americans today fear theocracy as much as did our founders. Although many of our founders often alluded (in political settings) to the value of religious faith in general, they did not express their religious views in an us-versus-them or holier-than-thou manner. To satirize religiosity is not to mock sincere religious faith.   *I know we have a democratic republic rather than a democracy, but republic doesn't rhyme with theocracy.