dmb to Mary and Steve:
This is just stuff I picked up without trying, you know. I'm not
looking for dirt on theists, it's just there in the news. It's just in
my face. Have you not heard about this stuff? You just don't think
it's a problem? I'm not saying we should panic, but it does seem wrong
to be unconcerned. Am I the only one who see it that way?
Andre:
In last Saturday's leading newspaper here in Holland an article was
printed about this 'Family'. It seems that queen Wilhelmina was at one
stage 'honorary president' of that crowd in the '50's. The annual
National Prayer Breakfast in Washington gets them all together.
As Jeff Sharlet ("The Family.The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of
American Power') commented: With many of the followers of The Family
self interest does not play a role. This is an eternal misconception
of 'non-believers'. These people are deeply convinced that they act on
behalf of God. Cynicism is not part of the game: they really believe
it, and that is what makes them so dangerous'.
And, yes, David Bahati, Ugandan parliamentarian, together with
president Museveni have important and close links with this group and
responsible for the introduction of the said legislation.
I would suggest that, so long as any incumbent president still has to
swear on the bible on inauguration day things remain very frightning.
As Sharlet observes: In this country you cannot leave the impression
that you are against praying'.
You won't even get a nomination. An instance of a victory of a social
PoV over an intellectual PoV.
Here in Holland, the fundamentalist (political) Christian Party is
seeking to amend legislation making it possible to ban gay teachers
and students from (their) schools ( i.e. if they are PRACTISING gay
persons!!!).
In the same vein, another minister is being pressured to include a
paragraph regarding (local) archeological finds, that the world is
12.000 years old, to be included in the schoolbooks... (rationale: as
containing 'another opinion' [other than the scientific one]).
It appears that including 'another opinion' is quickly regarded as
then being more 'objective'...something I see in much news coverage as
well. Get one side of the story and then another side and as
newsproducer you have brought the news 'objectively'. Quite
frightening.
Cheers
Andre
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
