What The Hell Is A "Blogswarm"??

When I first heard that there is going to be a "blogswarm" this weekend I thought "OH CRAP! There goes all the internet bandwidth this weekend!". Visions of millions of people looking like this guy running about, clogging up coffee shops everywhere.

But as it turns out, it is not this bad. This is the good news. The bad news is that it almost that bad.

A "blogswarm" is when a bunch of people blog about the same crap ON PURPOSE! It is a premeditated thing, as opposed to the usual randomness that tends to rule the Internet. Order from chaos. Entropy. Call it whatever you want.

This weekend's blogswarm is apparently about theocracy, and why it needs to be avoided at all costs.

First, some definitions. Theocracy is a POLITICAL THEORY. It really has squat to do with religion. You see, it is all about how to control people with a set of policies. Just like any political theory. So now that we have gotten past the "a rant against a political theory is NOT an attack on religion" thing, we may continue.

You see, many people have the misguided belief that this is not the case. They have been led to believe that the two are interchangeable.

Over the past decade or two, there has been a major push to interject religion into all facets of American politics and law - and to make the case that there was never a separation of Church and State.

This is simply silly. Had the founders wanted the United States to be a theocracy, they would have made one. They would have declared a state religion, and banned all others. The motto on the dollar bill would not be "A New Order Of The Ages". Because back then, another theocratic government would hardly be new.

No, the first amendment clearly states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is the wall of separation. There is no "state religion" in the USA. There is no "official religion" in the USA. Regardless of what leaders from the evangelical movement might say, this is the case. This is a new order of the ages, not the same old crap repackaged and marketed as new.

Government is protected from the excessive influence of religion, and therefore by default - and this should be very important to all people of faith - religion is protected from the government. If this nation were a theocracy, then ONE brand of Christianity would reign supreme and all others would be banned. Would it be the Methodists? The Baptists? The Catholics? Mormons? Jehovas Witnesses? None of the above? Who knows. But only one flavor would get its way - and the rest would be ignored at best - outlawed at worst.

This is why the Puritans went across the Atlantic in the first place. They got kicked out of England for not joining the Church of England. So they came to the only place where they would be left alone. In effect, they exiled themselves.

And now there is a push to do it all over again. Reclaim America for Jesus! Sounds good right? Well maybe it would be. Except that the people behind the movement have gone from the realm of religion to the realm of politics. They want to inject their view of religion into everything. Law. Education. Billboards. Malls. Everything.

I found these points on another blog.

* Every American should have the right to make personal decisions -- about family life, reproductive health, end of life care and other matters of personal conscience.
* American tax dollars should not go to charities that discriminate in hiring based on religious belief or that promote a particular religious faith as a requirement for receiving services.
* Political candidates should not be endorsed or opposed by houses of worship.
* Public schools should teach with academic integrity and without the promotion of religious preference or belief.
* Decisions about scientific and health policies should be based on the best available scientific data, not on religious doctrine.

Point 1. Every American should have the right to make personal decisions. I understand that some of the choices others make may not be the same ones you would make. But that is part of living in a free society. Take that away, and what are we left with?

Point 2. American tax dollars are supposed to go for the public good. Excluding people from services paid for with tax money because they do not believe in the same thing you do is not a good use of tax money. If you think it is, how about this idea? Traffic in Miami sucks. What I think is needed is a highway only for Agnostics that drive red Toyota 4 door pickup truck that has at least 4 anti-Bush stickers on it, and this road should be built with tax money. What is that? This idea sucks? Why? If you want to use this road you can - so long as you abide by the rules set forth by the highway committee - of which I am the only member. Same thing with charities funded with public money. If you are going to offer services to families in need - then ALL families in need must have a chance of using your services. Not just the ones you like or the ones that join your church. If your charity is privately funded then you may set any rules you like.

Point 3. Politics is nasty business. Poly = many and ticks = blood sucking insects. Do you want to being that into your Church? It is filth. I would find it highly offensive to bring such smut into a church. My mother went to a Sunday service at the church she used to force me to go to during the 1996 elections. She came back home floored that the sermon was all about how voting Democrat was a sin. Really. Right wing propaganda was handed out and everything. The offense to God was carried out by the Church "promise keepers". I just told her "now you know why I quit going to that place - and maybe you should quit going there too". She eventually did stop going. She was raised in the Baptist Church. Her parents were very religious, but in a normal sort of way. They always avoided the fire and brimstone end of the world kind of stuff. She had never, in all the years of her life, EVER heard such a thing in a church service before.

Point 4. Schools are here to educate people. Plain and simple. While a religion class could be incorporated into the curriculum, it would probably be an elective. Another humanities / philosophy class that would have to compete with all the other electives for students. While I think that philosophy is ignored by schools and this is a problem, I also have to recognize that there are only so many hours in the day, schools only get so much money, there is only so much classroom size, and other subjects are more important. If you can not read, you can not get too far in philosophy - therefore English is an important subject. As is History, for it is important to know the past. Math and science are important because these subjects keep America at the forefront of technology. And so on. there is just not any room to cram more stuff in - without making the school days longer, the school year longer, or the school week longer. This would require more money. We do not inject science in Sunday School, therefore we should not inject Sunday School into science. Makes sense to me. By the way, a real comparative religion class on the High School level would probably attract a lot of smart kids. I would support such a class in a public school - but it would be an elective and would have to compete for students. It may or may not make it at all schools. Elective choice is often dictated by college admissions, ease of passing, or interest in fine arts. Maybe a longer school day is not such a bad idea.

Point 5. Science is not a political agenda. Science is not "anti" anything. It is simply an analytical method of arriving at the truth - whatever that truth may be. Science lives in the realm of facts and figures and numbers and crap. Religion on the other hand lives in the realm of faith. You believe in God because you do. Not because you have "proof". If you have faith, you do not need proof! That is the whole point. If you require proof, then you no longer believe. So stop looking for proof in God - you will not find it. You must have faith. If you have that then piss on proof. You do not need it. It is OK to exclude religious doctrine from science and health issues. That is, if you truly have faith. Matters of science and health should be decided using the best evidence that can be proven, not religious doctrine.

And finally - oh dear! Looks like there may be a problem here! People really should drive slower and pay attention to the road.