“War On Christians” Convention
Two Washington Post articles today cover the “War On Christian” convention, convened by leading religious right leaders and held this week in Washington DC. Pretty astounding. Dana Milbank’s piece, Redemption Among the Faithful, which focused largely on Tom Delay’s participation in the event, highlights the claim by the convention’s organizers that the media is the greatest “megaphone for anti-faith values.”
As Milbank points out, “when it came to providing evidence about this war on Christians, the examples were a bit stale.” Alan Cooperman backs up this detachment from reality in his article “War” On Christians Is Alleged, comparing frequent claims at the conference of Christian persecution — one speaker went as far as to state that Christians “have become the Jews of the 21st century” — to the actual percentage of the US population this group constitutes.
White evangelicals make up about one-quarter of the U.S. population, and 85 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. But three-quarters of evangelicals believe they are a minority under siege and nearly half believe they are looked down upon by most of their fellow citizens, according to a 2004 poll.
I think the response of the Rev. Robert M. Franklin, a minister in the Church of God in Christ and professor of social ethics at Emory University, to the convention and its tone is right on mark:
This is a skirmish over religious pluralism, and the inclination to see it as a war against Christianity strikes me as a spoiled-brat response by Christians who have always enjoyed the privileges of a majority position.
Amen to that.
I always greet people with “happy holidays” because I realize there are some people who are eating Chinese food instead of opening presents under a tree on Dec. 25th.
Sorry, didn’t get much sleep last night. Thought it said a “War on Christmas”.
But I think my previous post did have some merit to it. Funny how the Christian right took such offense at such an inclusive and politically correct “greeting”. A perfect example of how silly they are in thinking they’re being attacked.
Well it is almost an attack when someone can bring a suit against a town because they are offended by a nativity. That is not the town establishing Christianity. Just recognizing the holiday. If my town put on a Ramadan (very sorry for my spelling I know I missed an h or two) celebration, I would not sue. I would probably go to it and check it out for it’s artistic value, to learn about another culture, and maintain my Christianity without becoming offended and irate to the point where I need to call the ACLU.. Sounds extreme but it happens.
We can handle the “attacks” I just think the double standard is funny. Promote everything but Christianity, and exclude all things Christian seems to be the conventional wisdom.
An intellignet non-violent war on religion might be a good idea!
Why ChaBoo? If you don’t agree with a belief, don’t subscribe to it.
I know this is way off base for the usual Defcon subject matter, but I felt it needed mentioning.
Last night I watched a news segment (CBS World News) about the Country of Brazil becoming INDEPENDENT of foreign oil demands. It seems that after the oil crisis of the mid 1970’s, Brazil launched a program to find alternative sources of fuel for automobiles. After many years of refinement, Brazil now has in place ethanol supplied “gas” stations, vehicles that run on this “flex” fuel, and incentives to farmers to grow the sugar cane that the fuel is derived from. The fuel is cheaper than gasoline and generates less pollutants than gasoline. All new vehicles made in Brazil can run on pure ethanol or a mixture of gasoline-ethanol, whichever is cheaper at the time, and cost no more than traditional vehicles. Analyists say that the fuel is cheaper than petroleum, unless oil falls below 45 dollars per barrel. This is not something they are hoping for in 20 years, Brazil says that it will be independent of oil imports by the end of 2006. It sounds like research and ingenuity played the major role is this astounding achievement, and politics played a very minor role. Maybe our country could take note of this.
The war on Christmas has been waged already and the dollar won.
Do Christians really feel offended when I say “happy holiday” to them? Why would I assume that everyone is a Christian? Excuse me if I feel like including everyone in my good wishes unlike the Christian fundamentalists who think they’re the only ones who matter. I’m the one trying to PROMOTE good will to all unlike others who feel it should be directed only to them. How’s that for a double standard?
And Mike, as petty as it seems that the ACLU sue to remove such religious displays is that they’re defending the constitution. They’re not attacking you or Christianity. They’re simply fighting for separation of church and state.
Unless you are a Christian, you would not notice the attacks that are going on against Christianity. One good example was the Christian youth gathering that took place in San Franscisco this weekend.
It was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle that the Board of Supervisors passed a resoluion condemning the event stating that the conference would “negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.”
Also, some schools in Michigan was allowing Tracedental Meditation, a Hindu practice, but won’t allow a minute of silence.
And there is also the attack on Christmas.
I can give you more examples of you like it.
John you said the following:
“Do Christians really feel offended when I say “happy holiday” to them? Why would I assume that everyone is a Christian? Excuse me if I feel like including everyone in my good wishes unlike the Christian fundamentalists who think they’re the only ones who matter. I’m the one trying to PROMOTE good will to all unlike others who feel it should be directed only to them. How’s that for a double standard?
Sorry some comments stripped because of formatting, I believe.
I don’t feel offended when you say happy hollidays, say whatever you want. I am offended when a display must be removed because of some liberal interpretation of the establishment clause.
You don’t even see the standard I was referring to. You would not protest if a hindhu celebration took place on
public grounds, or a display for a buddhist symbol. You would certainly protest a Christian public display.
Saying happy holidays isn’t the issue. I don;t care what you say. I am not so petty to be offended becuase someone a holiday that has been stripped of most Christian meaning this day in age anyway. I will say Merry Christmas to people, and if they want to get offended by it, then let them. I am spreading good will by saying hi to a stranger and wishing htem a merry Christmas. I think GOOD should be PROMOTED to everyone. In fact as I have already stated (and you have already chosen to ignore) the Bible calls Christians to a servantlike atitude in life. Willing to sacrifice of themselves to the betterment of others. So no I don’t feel good should be directed towards me. I have already received all the good I will ever need when I was pardoned for my sins and accepted the free gift
Brian, a recent study (University of Minnesota) has found that atheists are the most hated minority in America. Not only that, they are discriminated against constantly.
The study found that atheists are hated more than homosexuals and Muslims. Atheists were also voted to be “least” American.
Have Christians ever run into this problem? Probably not. Christians have a solid majority in the United States and pretty much make up the run of the government. How can you constantly whine about being discriminated against? I have a hard time showing sympathy to this so-called “persecution” of Christians. You can’t throw a rock without hitting a church!
Your “examples” are weak and probably have more to the story than you are letting on.
The “war” on Christmas is so bogus, I just want to laugh everytime I hear about it.
Mike, a nativity scene is not inclusive. It specifically represents Christianity. When a nativity display is show, it is giving out a specific message - the birth of Jesus, the figure of Christianity. How is that a good thing for a secular government?
“Promote everything but Christianity, and exclude all things Christian seems to be the conventional wisdom.”
Excuse me, but what is being promoted over Christianity? Geez, there is a strong majority of Christians in America and they hold most of the government seats. And there is at least five churches for every street block!
Over Christmas, I didn’t see ONE other holiday represented on government buildings. I saw the Nativity scene exclusively.
Mike -
“I am offended when a display must be removed because of some liberal interpretation of the establishment clause.”
I get offened when the government thinks it can promote Christianity too. I think you fail to grasp what the establishment clause is.
As I explained to you before, a Nativity scene exclusively represents Christianity. I think you need to read up on the Lemon test. A Nativity scene has no secular purpose and there is no reason a secular government should promote Christianity over any other religious belief.
As the aunt of two beautiful children who are being raised in the Islamic faith, I am very sensitive to these issues. And it should be noted that their mother (my sister) is a devout Christian who homeschools her youngest daughter. Perhaps I am just more inclined to be tolerant of others.
“You would not protest if a hindhu celebration took place on
public grounds, or a display for a buddhist symbol.”
I absolutely would, unless it’s an inclusive event. The same goes for Christian gatherings.
“Willing to sacrifice of themselves to the betterment of others.”
Well, good for you. Please note than many other individuals who are not Christian have these same feelings toward others.
“I have already received all the good I will ever need when I was pardoned for my sins and accepted the free gift.”
I’m glad you mythology makes you happy, and I can see it forms the majority of your political opinions too. Bad idea.
I like my mythology too, but I don’t need the support of the government to make it strong.
I agree with Sarah on these points. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. It is setup to protect the equality and liberty of all citizens as seen under the laws of the land. When a government sets up religious displays advocating one religion and no others it has unfairly sided with one group (in the most common case, the majority) over others.
Now a lot of people will say, “but this is just a western holiday tradition and no harm is done” without realizing that no matter how small their community there are at least some individuals there who do not believe as they do. They do not realize they have taken an unfair advantage over this small minority by using a combination of tax payer dollars and public square space (also paid for by tax payer dollars) to setup a scene advocating just their religion over all the others (and the non-religious). These individuals may well desire to setup a scene dedicated to their religion as well on these commonly owned lands and use tax payer dollars as well to pay for it.
The only fair and equitable solution for this is to allow none or all. If a single individual wants to setup a Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, Wiccan, or even a scene depicting a black or oriental Jesus then they should be afforded the same tax dollars and the same space with the same public view.
Having said this, this only applies to true publicly owned land and governments. People including business and church owners should be allowed to do as they see fit with their bodies, clothing, and/or land/buildings/cars as long as they are not in the role of a public official at the time.
John, do governmental municipalities which allow nativity scenes exclude these other forms of religious expression? As Sarah stated above, Christians are in the majority in the United States, so nativity scenes are more commonly displayed than Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, Wiccan, or even a scene depicting a black or oriental Jesus. But, if these others are not excluded by establishment, what violation of the Constitution has occurred?
Moonpie,
As I stated above allowing all in a fair way is an acceptable and equitable fashion for local governments to operate in my opinion. However this means allocating the same amount of space, tax dollars, accessibility (don’t stick the black jesus in the basement), etc.
Also in either case it shouldn’t be the government conducting and sponsoring the religious event, it should be citizens wishing to use public money and land asking to do so. Its one thing to allow and facilitate the use of public lands by citizens (an ok practice IMO) compared to a government taking the initiative and setting up a scene as the defacto default.
So John, are you saying that as long as a private group, i.e. church, charity, etc., and NOT the municipality itself applies for and receives permission to place a nativity scene or some other religious symbol in a public area (as in owned by the municipality), there are no grounds for objection (based on the establishment clause) as long as the same option is available to other faiths, whether or not they request (by proper channels) the same exposure for their religious symbols?
Moonpie -
If that is the case, I think there could be no substantial constitutional objection to any such display. The ACLU would have a very difficult case to present if there were an objection.
Moonpie, yep that’s what I’m saying. I have no problem with private citizens of any group using public lands (or at least public places setup for such acitivites) for their private uses. If I want to hold an atheist revival at the local park than I should be able to.
If they decide to allow plaques or scenes to be setup on public lands then they have to let others do it as well. The 2 limitations are:
1. The government cannot pick one religion to display over others on its own behalf.
2. If they allow any then the government cannot restrict another religion/group from setting up its own scene/plaque or whatever.
Ahh I missed part of your post and didn’t reply to it, so let me touch on the establishment clause.
The establishment clause establishes that the government cannot pass laws that favor any religion over any other nor can they pass laws that restrict a religious practice.
Setting up a system so that citizens can use public lands freely for their own purposes through some sort of accessible and fair method that is open to all in my opinion does not violate the establishment clause.
Now if the government passes an ordinance to setup a religious scene itself or to provide tax payer money to one religion over all others than it has favored one religion over others and has violated the establishment clause. Same situation if they allow one religion and not others.
If people would actually take the time to study the history of religion they would soon develope a healthy dose of skepticism about the events recounted in the bible. Religion has merely evolved along with humans. Religion preys on people who are afraid of death, the ignorant, the lonely, and those who have been culturally conditioned (brainwashed) by their families. Santa Claus is just one “gateway myth” that some teach their children. Even though they do not understand why they are doing it. People need to think for themselves. Who could actualy believe that god would change the physics and future of the entire universe to answer the prayer of some fundamentalist who wants hugo chivez dead and not answer the prayer of a dying child. Any normal person, with a modicum of common sense, should be able to see through the motives of why religious people perpetuate these myths. Why is it that some people will live their lives wracked by fear and guilt? Because they were brainwashed by their family. Isn’t it odd that 95% of religious people (ALL Religions) believe in the religion of their parents? Does it make sense that our salvation would coincidentally be decided by what our parents believe?
What you said about prayer talks about your ignorance of prayer. (It is ChAvez, by the way).. The Bible doesn’t say prayer is a tool to change God’s will or to change the future events. Prayer is mainly a way of giving thanks to God, of putting God first in your mind and life, and of bending your will towards God. The Bible says in many places that ask and you will receive, but it says all around that sentiment, that the caveat is you have to be asking according to God’s will, so prayer is a great tool for walking closer with God and helping to change your will.
My parents are both lost. I was raised to not believe in Christianity, and to believe in myself and the power of humanity. I was raised that my own intelligence and independence is much more important than any belief in some crazy made up force… Well I have my salvation in spite of that upbringing. For a long time I was not a believer and wrote and said things much like your comments here. My salvation isn’t because of anything anyone other than Jesus Christ did. Certainly not because of anything I did. That is what the Bible teaches, and anyone to say anything differently shows an ignorance of what they are protesting.
Your post was inflammatory, void of any relevance and accusing others of the same ignorance you seem to be full of. Please study more about what you oppose before you oppose it. You want to oppose my faith with intelligence and reason, I will listen, but not insults and assumptions.
For the record I have no fear or guilt in my life. That has been washed away at the cross. Prior to having faith, I was fine not knowing where I went when I died.
Also about Chavez and the dying kid….
If a fundamentalist is praying for Chavez to be dead, I question his faith. It is not up to me to judge, but I would urge you to not use that person’s actions to judge Christians. I have never and will never pray for anyone to be dead. In fact if I anyone ever irks me, I do pray for them (not all the time, I am far from perfect and still trying to improve my prayer life daily). I pray for the safety and well being of them and their family, I pray for success and happiness for them, I pray that they can find faith and receive the gift of salvation freely offered to them. The Bible doesn’t instruct one to pray for the death of those who persecute them. Please don’t take my prayer for them to have salvation as an insult either.. My beliefs are my beliefs, you don’t have to subscribe to them, but within my beliefs I believe that we are all destined to Hell, and the only way around it is through belief in and a desire to strive for obedience to Jesus Christ and His death on the cross for our sins.. For me not to pray for their salvation would be to wish them to Hell, and God doesn’t wish that any should perish, so for me to would be utter disobedience. You can disagree with my beliefs, but my motives aren’t bad. If you believed that we were about to be attacked with some new biological weapon and you had a vaccine, wouldn’t you make sure everyone knew how to get their vaccine even if they choose to insult you and not go get it? I would hope so.
Also about the little boy and about prayer. God answers all Prayers from those who are his Children. The Bible says that we are all created by God and in His image, but the only children of God are those who believe. Also God does answer all prayers, it may not be the answer we wanted, it may not make sense to us, but He does.
You can say all the things you implied in your post, or all ofthe things that I said when I thought like you, but this isn’t a some way for me to deal with any insecurtieis. Prior to believing, my idea on what happens when we die was basically “nothing” I believed there was we lived our lives and when it was over we ceased to exist and that was that. That didn’t scare me or bother me. I had started a decent career path, met an awesome girl and things were going relatively well in my life. Things weren’t as good as they are now, but this wasn’t some way to hide from things I was scared of. We aren’t here to debate the merits of believing or not believing. It is clear I am in the minority in these forums, but I get annoyed when I see the angry hate-filled posts that lack reason and a desire to discuss rather than to stand on the soapbox and hurl insults.
And I believe I already spoke to the fear and guilt above, but I have no fear or guilt, and it is great. I still do fall into sins daily, but I don’t try to, it is my old nature working through, but I know that my salvation is secure because of God’s promise, I know that my eternity is secure because of God’s promise, I know exactly where I am “going” when my body dies.
Can you also show me the survey that was done to get that 95% result? I would like to see the questions asked, the margin of error, the sample size, the sampling method and the source of funding for the group that gave you that number. Shouldn’t be too much to ask since you have the exact number in front of you, you must have your source handy.
Debate the constitution and the First Ammendment and it’s impact on the current events described here. John McGinn brings up some interesting points, and I can see some of the points of this group as a whole. I don’t think we need to wipe “In God We Trust” off of our currency, but I do agree that if tax dollars are spent promoting ANY religion it can be considered promotion of an establishment of a religion. Those dollars would need to be freely available to ALL religions, including atheism, and that would be tough to do, because someone is always going to feel excluded, but it can be done in a fair way. I also think that if a group approaches a municipality and asks “can I put a cretch up in the park grounds?” they should be allowed if there is a policy clearly defined. If another group asks can I put up a display of celebration of my religion, then it should also be allowed. Of course I feel it should pass some tests, it shouldn’t be put up with a motive of angering and it should follow decency laws. I mean it could get outlandish in a South Park kind of way.
1-I was only expressing my opinion as I am guaranteed by the constitution.
2- I would defend your right to do so also.
3- Isn’t believing something by faith believing in something for which their is no proof?
Just as Martin Luther’s reformation put an end to the bloody tyranny and aversion to science by the church, so will the internet be the end to organized fundamentalist religion. Informed people don’t believe in fables and myths.
Dale, ain’t the Constitution grand?
It gives us ALL the right to express our opinions, no matter how sane or far-fetched they may be. You are correct in your definition of faith. God’s Word tell us in Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Please don’t lump all so-called believers together.
It also tells us in Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” In other words, everyone who proclaims to be a person of faith may not necessarily be one. It is best to stand back and take note of their actions, then that determination is easier to make. For some, it is very obvious that they are a shame to believers. For some others, they are gem-studded crowns.
Moonpie,
With all due respect, I still don’t understand how faith is evidence of things not seen. Evidence is related to proof and believing by faith is believing what we cannot prove.
Mike, sorry for the late response to your post. I was out of town for a few days. I’m glad there was someone as intelligent as Sarah to respond to some of your points.
I would feel offended if any religion was being paid for or promoted by tax payer money - Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. You definitely need to realize that we “seculars” aren’t out to get Christians. I’m sorry that you feel that I’m singling you out. And please stop using the word “liberal” when it comes to the constitution. I don’t think Judge John E. Jones ruling on the Dover, PA case regarding the teaching of ID had anything to do with a so called “liberal” interpretation of the establishment clause.
And be that as it may that you think you’ve been granted all the good will you deserve, I’m going to continue to wish you and your family peace and good will.
And Dale, I’ve always remembered that mantra from the sixties - “Question authority”.
To all concerned,
Everyone is so preocuppied with nativity scenes and the politically correct Christmas Greetings.
Well lets think about this. Christmas is a Christian Holyday. Yet Christmas is a national holiday, no mail, no banks
no stock exchange. What has happened to separation of state and church? Shouldn’t the Supreme Court rule
that Chrismas as a national holiday is unconstitutional? Hence if you decide not to work you are not paid
and we will have mail service, banks etc..In this manner we will solve the problems of naivity scenes correct greetings et al. Lets outlaw Christmas!
Lets reflect a bit. Does’nt this country have enough REAL problems with an ill advised war in Iraq, with in excess
of 40 million people without medical insurance?
I say lets outlaw christmas (note no capital C) end all of this scatological debate over issuse which
only reflect the needs of the insecure in our society.Outlawing Xmas may not please Macys but it may shut some of the extreme left wing of our society.
Lets focus in on Iraq and how do we hwlp the have not and uninsured in our nation.
Sometimes we liberals sound like a bunch of spoiled kids who lost their lolli pops.
John E.
No worries about the lateness.. My use of the word liberal was not referring to any side of the aisle in congress, just liberal as in loose… My apologies there, I also see your point that you probably don’t like that definition of the word being used but there are many decisions or appeals based on a loose interpretation of the constitution. I have not read the full decision regarding Dover, PA, so I can’t speak to that, but I see very clearly the side that was decided upon, and it makes sense to me. In many respects many secular folks are singling out Christianity as the one bad religion. Maybe not you specifically, but some posts in another topic from you seemed inflammatory and not productive, so I apologize. I mean no ill will towards you at all.
Dale -
1-I was only expressing my opinion as I am guaranteed by the constitution.
express away.. I was just doing the same if you want to play that game.
2- I would defend your right to do so also.
I too defend your right to do that, and would never want to see anything other than people being allowed to express themselves as outlined in the First Ammendment (barring the exceptions like “FIRE!!!”), even if they disagree with my sentiments, that is what is great about our constitutional republic.
3- Isn’t believing something by faith believing in something for which their is no proof?
Yes it is, and what does that have to do with anything? I freely admit and have said as much here that I can never give any empirical evidence to support my faith, it is faith, and I truly believe it and that is that. I can’t give you evidence, I can’t force your consciousness to occupy the schema of mine and understand exactly from my pov. It is faith.
Just as Martin Luther’s reformation put an end to the bloody tyranny and aversion to science by the church, so will the internet be the end to organized fundamentalist religion. Informed people don’t believe in fables and myths.
I am an informed person, and I believe the Bible is not a fable nor a myth. You can accuse me of ignornace by virtue that I have faith, but that is just a defense mechanism for you and if it helps you sleep better that is fine. Fundamentalist has a bad name these days. If by Fundamentalist you mean conservative Bible believing to the fundamental roots of the Bible, then yup mea culpa.
Martin Luther was upset because the Bible was not being preached as written. The church of his day and the Holy Roman Empire had perverted the Bible to give political and financial rewards. People were killed because of a lack of allegiance to people, salvation wasn’t discussed as it was laid out in the Bible. Basically, Martin Luther who you just heralded, wanted the church to get back to the FUNDAMENTALS of the Bible, and here you have the birth of most Protestant denominations, including my Northern Conservative Baptist church.
John E- well said
Thomas D. Halikias- well said
Mike- well said and thanks for being reasonable about all this.
Sometimes I close my eyes and try to imagine what it would be like for me to believe something by faith. Then reality sets in and I have go on with my life as a born skeptic. My father noticed this when I was quite young and encouraged me to think for myself, even though he was a practicing catholic. He said “where there is doubt, there is freedom.” Some say reality is merely an illusion but you have to admit, it is a very persisent one. I have been a student of religious phylosophy, history of religion, and anthropology for 30 years and I just go where the proof leads me. I don’t mean to bash christians although the knowledge I have about the big picture forces me to make statements that are not going to be popular. The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. I am not a cynic. I am a skeptic about things without proof and a free thinker. I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use ( I wish that were my quote but I must credit Galileo Galilei.) and belive something by faith.
After the Reformation the power of the church was much diminished and we now have hundreds of competing churches, most of whom think they have a corner on god. Some people are offended because another does not subscribe to their religion, but they dismiss all other religions out of hand. Most people are culturally conditioned to practice the religion of their parents. I think it is kind of funny that one’s salvation would be determined coincidentally by the family they were born in to.
So, am I declaring war on christians? Well, not war, but, in many cases I think a reality check might be in order. If a person wants to use his religion to dictate ethics and morality in his life, I guess there is no harm to others.
People that are so acutely aware that they “sin” daily, then there is an obvious guilt complex at work, and sorry to say it would take years and years of therapy to overcome that. Once a person is conditioned to religion by his parents, the illusion and belif in supernatural stuff is basicall chronic.
Some individuals ask me that how could all these people believe something that is not true. They believe it the same way that many believe John Smith (Mormon church) dug up plates in New York State and an angel came down from heaven and translated them. The same way scientologists believe that aliens came out of a volcano in Hawaii and reside in us. The way they believed in Jim Jones, David Koresh, voodoo, wicca, islam, etc, etc. Humans are born mythmakers. We should have evolved out of this by now but the instinct to invent myths to explain the condition of things persists. Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
For the record I must say that I am a deist- Deism (n): Belief in God as revealed by nature and reason combined with a disbelief in scripture, prophets, superstition and church authority.
As a scientist I love to wind the cosmological clock backward about 14.5 billion years and it is easy to imagine that singularity, the size of a marble, with immeasurable density and power; all released to the size of the observable universe in a trillionth of a second (known as inflation.) That is where I stand in awe and stare into the face of my creator. How dare the human race reduce my creator to a jealous, vindictive, dark creature that would damn us to eternal torture. And how dare mere humans think they could impose the will of their mythical god on others.
Mike,
Keep your mythology and self-righteous BS out of the Constitution, and everything will be fine. Geezus . . .
Soleil - Thanks for that very insightful comment added to the mix here……
Dale You make some good points, but I disagree with some parts of your theme. For one I am a free thinker. I think for myself. I have a faith and believe I should strive to live in God’s will, but I still make my very own decisions and in fact I freely came to that faith after living 90% of my life without that faith.
You also said:
“People that are so acutely aware that they “sin” daily, then there is an obvious guilt complex at work, and sorry to say it would take years and years of therapy to overcome that. Once a person is conditioned to religion by his parents, the illusion and belif in supernatural stuff is basicall chronic.”
We all sin. Plain and simple. The Bible says that all sin. this is not a guilt complex. Sure a therapist may be happy to say so and start many hour long sessions billed to my insurance, but I completely disagree. My acknowledgement of the fact that I sin isn’t me feeling guilty. The Bible tells me that I have been forgiven, and I don’t set out to sin, I don’t live in any perpetual habitual sin. I do stupid things, make dumb mistakes. I’m human. Guilt would be to wallow on the sin, and focus solely on that, worry about my salvation each day, focus on the bad I do, constantly put myself down. Admitting that I am not perfect is just me being honest with myself and the world.
There is an attack on Christians and Christmas. I didn’t hear a word about the other religions and what they say or do, only “Merry Christmas”. And I hate to tell you this, but even people who are not Christians are going to complain if you take that holiday away from them. They enjoy the time off. Should we quit putting out the flag on Flag Day or the Fourth of July because of all the peolple who have come here in the last few years from other countries? If you prefer your countries flag and anthem and values, go back. No one forced you here. Just like if I moved to another country that spoke a different language , I would say it is my responsibility to learn their language before I go there. Yet, we force kids to take Spanish and we have to spend our money teaching them English. I’m sorry, I really don’t understand that. Why isn’t there a bigger attack on Halloween. It really pertains more to evil. A lot of us believe it is an attack on Christianity but nothing is said.
Dale you also said :
“After the Reformation the power of the church was much diminished and we now have hundreds of competing churches, most of whom think they have a corner on god. Some people are offended because another does not subscribe to their religion, but they dismiss all other religions out of hand. Most people are culturally conditioned to practice the religion of their parents. I think it is kind of funny that one’s salvation would be determined coincidentally by the family they were born in to.”
Some people are offended, but that does not portray everyone. Speaking for myself, I am never offended if one does not believe. I am offended if one is militant about it in their attempts to convert me, but I am not ever offended by anothers belief. The God who created me gave us free will to choose. How could I disagree with that free will? As far as dismissing other religions, well if you truly believe in your religion you almost have to. I don’t dismiss the people who believe as whackos or nutjobs as I sometimes feel happens to me by those who are not theists. The Bible tellsme ethere is one and only one way to heaven, through belief in Jesus Christ. The Bible tells me there is only one God. So I do dismiss the theology of religions that do not believe the very basics of Christianity (We are all sinners, the punishment of sin is death, the free gift of God is eternal life, the only way to receive that gift is through faith in Jesus Christ and receiving the grace offered in His atoning death on the cross). For me to accept a religion that does not believe as the Bible says would be for me to deny my faith, and basically be a liar with regards to discussing my beliefs.
I already answered the comment you already made about the parents and born into. Quite a lot of the Christians I know didn’t come from Christian homes. I also know quite a lot of Christians whose children do not believe. Speaking from my personal experience as I have earlier, I can honestly tell you that my parents beliefs definitely had nothing to do with my salvation. They are both firm non-believers. My father grew up Catholic and is angry and bitter about some bad things that happened in his life and he does not and will never believe.. My mother is more or less a person who believes in the power of herself and the power of mankind. SHe has told me many times (including while growing up) that “whatever you believe as long as you are sincere in your beliefs is right for you and it may be different between people, but if they really believe it then it is true”)..
You closed with:
“And how dare mere humans think they could impose the will of their mythical god on others. ”
I completely agree with you for the most part. Some of the laws and commands in the Bible are the basis for our laws today. The argument could be made they would have come down anyway, like with Hamurabis code. I will never impose God’s will on anyone inasmuch as I can’t make them want to believe or follow His will. That would be unbiblical to do. I don’t like Abortion, and personally think that should be illegal. I think it is fine to talk about God in public arenas, I think prayer before a football game down south is fine, I think “one nation under God” is fine and harmless.. I would never in a million years attempt to impose my beliefs upon another against their will. I may share my faith with a friend or family member, but never beat them with my Bible. If they want to hear more I’ll tell them, if they want to not hear more, I will respect their wishes.
You also said “…Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.”
Depends on the religion, I suppose. I am a Christian and that is all I can really speak to. I guess this depends on what right is. The Bible instructs us to do what is right. It tells us to respect others, to obey the laws of our government, to pay our taxes, to hold no hate in your heart towards others, to be forgiving, to have a sacrificial love for others, to have no eyes for anyone other than your spouse, to love your parents, to love your children, to love your wife like Jesus loved the church (and you saw what He did for the church according to my beliefs, lived a life of servitude and died a death that payed for all of our sins), to help others, to care for the poor, to not judge, etc… So I see no issue there.
Also, Christianity isn’t about doing, necessarily. It isn’t about doing what you are told.. It is about believing, having faith in God, having faith in the salvation offered. It is about a relationship with the creator of the world. If you truly have th at relationship, you want to try to walk as Christ walked. Humans will always fail because we are in the flesh and human nature is strong, we will make stupid mistakes because we aren’t perfect, but a Christian should want to try and live as Christ lived. Not because they are following some set of procedures on a project plan or task list.
Dale, you seem like an intelligent person and you have a great view on many things. I definitely disagree with you in many ways, but I am enjoying our conversation just as I am with everyone else here. For me it is just as tough to understand how someone can not believe as it is for you to understand how someone can believe. I hope that none of these posts have seemed offensive, sometimes I can come off as sarcastic.. I also think that some of your posts have come across that way, and perhaps it is because you are judging Christianity based on the actions of people who make a claim to Christianity but then do such horrible things as Fred Phelps’ group, or the folks who advocate killing MDs who perform abortions, or the folks who truly think that everyone should be forced to believe. T
hose people are not expressing Biblical thoughts, they are expressing their thoughts mixed in with some Bible, and had they read the whole Bible they would see that their approach is so very wrong.
Mike,
“I will never impose God’s will on anyone inasmuch as I can’t make them want to believe or follow His will. That would be unbiblical to do. I don’t like Abortion, and personally think that should be illegal. I think it is fine to talk about God in public arenas, I think prayer before a football game down south is fine, I think “one nation under God” is fine and harmless.. I would never in a million years attempt to impose my beliefs upon another against their will.”
I hope you can see the inherit contradiction in your statements above?
Let’s just take the football example. Let’s say I’m a young teenager of some non-Christian faith but really really am good at football and want to play really bad. Now you are saying that either 1) I cannot because I cannot attend the pre-game team Christian prayer or 2) I have to remove myself from the presence of the team and act as if I’m a second class citizen as they perform their Christian prayer, or 3) I have to stand there and have the prayer forced upon me.
Would you be willing at your next tech conference to sit there with your head down while a Wiccan priestess gave a forced invocation upon the whole group? Would you feel good or comfortable about it? How about at a tech team meeting where you want to feel as much a part of the team as everyone else, but you have to either have a Hindu prayer forced upon you or you have to leave? Would you be willing to assume the lotus position in front of a statue to Krishna? Would that not make you feel like a 2nd class individual as the majority got to express their prayers as a group and you did not? Or do you think the majority should have the right to trample over the minority in such a way?
Interesting. The posts here are getting longer and longer, and more and more impassioned, but we are getting away from the very simple issue: Should public funds be used on anything which explicitly promotes a particular religion? Our country, founded though it was by men of Christian faith, has a Constitution, written by those same men, which says the answer is “NO”. The Christians in this debate have taken the view that if we don’t want to participate in the rituals of their faith, we are being intolerant. That perverts the very concept of tolerance.
Some of the Christians are fond of accusing us of being motivated by “fear”–a condescending view, implying that we are fearful of our own inability to resist the overwhelming grandeur of their mythology, if we would only be open to it. Well I have news for you, Mike, Lynnette, and the rest: What I am fearful of is the destruction of America, as we replace science with religion in our schools. Have you seen how rapidly people in China and India are rushing to fill the gap in science and in technological industries, because our own kids are growing up too dumb and disinterested to bother learning science? State sponsored religion is just the equivalent of pushing this country off the cliff.
John,
Taking your points about the football example…
I hope you can see the inherit contradiction in your statements above?
“Let’s just take the football example. Let’s say I’m a young teenager of some non-Christian faith but really really am good at football and want to play really bad. Now you are saying that either 1) I cannot because I cannot attend the pre-game team Christian prayer or 2) I have to remove myself from the presence of the team and act as if I’m a second class citizen as they perform their Christian prayer, or 3) I have to stand there and have the prayer forced upon me.”
Or 4) I would stand there with the team and think about my day or the game plan, ignoring the prayer, not bowing. Is that so bad? I would have no problem with someone else doing that, in fact the people who believe shouldn’t be looking around at everyone else anyway, so what is the harm? If you don’t believe it is a bunch of words, you aren’t believing them or accepting them by standing there and not participating.
“Would you be willing at your next tech conference to sit there with your head down while a Wiccan priestess gave a forced invocation upon the whole group? Would you feel good or comfortable about it? How about at a tech team meeting where you want to feel as much a part of the team as everyone else, but you have to either have a Hindu prayer forced upon you or you have to leave? Would you be willing to assume the lotus position in front of a statue to Krishna? Would that not make you feel like a 2nd class individual as the majority got to express their prayers as a group and you did not? Or do you think the majority should have the right to trample over the minority in such a way? ”
I live in New England, so I can’t speak from experience. I do believe, however, that no one is forced to leave the field for not praying. If I was at a tech conference and there was a Wiccan prayer, I would just sit there and read the notes from the speaker or check out the exhibit map and plan on where I can get my freebies.
I would not participate in that team meeting, I would not worship a shrine to Krishna. Nope, I would not feel like a 2nd class individual at all. I would either ignore the ritual, or say my own Christian prayer, and be fine for it. If someone is so close minded to make a judgement call about me because of my lack of worshipping their faith then shame on them, and their opinion should not matter to my life…
My apologies for disagreeing, but you haven’t convinced me with the football argument. If you don’t like the prayer don’t participate, and carry on. If someone wants to be judgemental that is their problem not yours.
Charles, I don’t know if I ever said anything about fear, but tahnks for your points all the same. I also think that we need more math and science in our schools and I sincerely believe that Religion should not replace that. I suppose you would like to do away with music electives or humanities electives because they interfere with science and math? We should have math and science only? No, of course not, we should have a well balanced education. If the bill was going to make this a required course, make it so the credit could not be received any other way, or replace required core educational curriculum then I would be quite against it. It is an elective offered in addition to the basic courses in math and science, and I bet they offer advanced math and science electives also.
To All - I am done posting here. Taking too much time away from my studies and the posts seem to all be spreading in different directions. Dale is posting the same drivel repeatedly and it is trying my patience. He raises the same points, ignores my responses, and no good will come out of this.. So everyone out there enjoy your various causes, careers and lives.
John M - Thank you for the mature conversation. John E. thank you for the same. Stephanie thank you for the same.
I agree with many of the points raised, and think that some of the extremes on each side do need to tone down their initiatives in this country.
I will pray for the people I have interacted with here. My true apologies if it is offensive. But the prayers are just for your well being, your happiness, the well being of those in your familys, success in your lives and yeah I will also pray that you can come to have faith and receive salvation
(please again don’t take that as an insult, but play make believe for a minute and put yourselves in my shoes, my beliefs are clear in what happens to those who don’t believe and because I am an undereducated, uninformed fundieie, I do believe in Hell and Heaven, so the prayers are for something really great to happen to you… Not from your point of view, but because I am the crazy Bible believing Christian my point of view is the one that matters in my prayers).
Happy spring to all!
Charles, I can’t agree that our kids lack of interest in science education today is due to religion. I think it is mostly due to parents who are: distracted, disenfranchised, and disappearing. Kids have so many other technological advances to occupy their time that only a few are really interested in the sciences. Most have probably never seen the simple copper wire radio kit you can get at Radio Shack and other neat similar projects that help spark interest….they’re too old and passe!
Reading through all the above postings, you are correct in stating that some of the Christians are accusing you of being motivated by fear, but these postings also seem to accuse the Christians of being motivated by …well…ignorance. I don’t think either accusation is exactly accurate.
One thing is for sure: neither group really understands the other…probably never will.
I think that one thing non-believers can’t understand about Christians is this: There are two commands in the New Testament that are considered to be above all others. One is: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, spirit, and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. The other is: Go into all the world teaching the Gospel to all creatures. These are called “the great command” and “the great commission”. So you can see, even if you don’t agree, where they get their motivation.
I think that non-believers get their motivation partly from not wanting to acknowledge or answer to a higher power whether it is state sanctioned or non sanctioned. Sciences sometimes seem to point away from a Creator, but how do we know that what is evidenced by science is not just the motions set forth by God. Have you ever noted that the order of creation in the Bible and the order of the origins offered by science are almost identical. Recently, National geographic ran an article on DNA and illustrateed how man originated in Africa then spread throughout the world by several routes. Yet, this estimated origin point is not far from what is described in Genesis as the “Garden of Eden”. Man can use the sciences to “disprove” God’s Word…or to “prove” God’s Word…it’s all a matter of personal interpretation….I’m sorry, I got way off track about the topic of discussion.
Moonpie,
you said-Have you ever noted that the order of creation in the Bible and the order of the origins offered by science are almost identical.
This just may be the silliest statement I have ever heard. If you actually read Genesis you will find some really wierd absurdities. There is no scientific basis whatsoever in this story. It is a vain myth by some ancient person trying to explain their existence.
God created light, day and night, and evening and morning before he creates the sun. Nice trick
God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters.
“Let the earth bring forth grass”
Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). Notice, though, that God lets “the earth bring forth” the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. He finally creates the sun and says,
“Let them be for signs”
God placed the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used “for signs”. This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read “the signs” in the Zodiac to predict what will happen on Earth.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. I thought the light was already there!
1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Were the fowl brought forth by the water?
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: Just how many gods were there?
1:31 God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.
God purposefully designed a system that ensures the suffering and death of all his creatures, parasite and host, predator and prey.
(2:4-25) “These are the generations”
The second creation account. Compare with Gen.1:1-2:3 in which the order of events is entirely different.
(2:5-7) In chapter 1 plants are created on the third day before humans are created on the sixth. But in chapter 2 the order is reversed.
(2:7, 18-22) In the first creation story, God makes humans (male and female) after the other animals; in the second, God makes a man first, then the other animals, and then a woman
Then God parades all the animals of the world past Adam and he names them all. Hmmm that would have kept Adam busy for a while.
Later on God throws the snake on the ground and says from now on he will crawl on the ground and eat dust. How did the snake get around before that? Bounce around on his tail? Snakes don’t eat dust do they?
That’s enough for now but you get the idea.
Moonpie,
Maybe I’m luckier than most “unbelievers” as I am married to a believer and I understand the deep passion believers have about their faith and I understand the drive to spread the Gospel. I also understand that they truly believe I’ll be roasting in the fires of hell for all eternity and they try and persuade me otherwise out of a concern for my ultimate destiny in eternity. I understand that they think they have a relationship with Jesus and its the greatest thing ever, far greater than sliced bread, and that they think everyone else should enjoy that “greatness” too. All this applies to Christian believers of course, but the devout of other faiths have just the same deep passion about their faith.
Are there things about “believers” I don’t understand? Sure, plenty. As I’ve stated before on here, I rely on evidence to decide what is true and what is not, believers rely also on faith to decide what is true and what is not. I cannot understand this, I lack the ability to believe without evidence and I always have. I don’t know why, that’s just me. I disbelieved the Jesus stories I was told when I was very young, less than 8 years old. I disbelieved the Santa story before I turned 4.
As I alluded to in another post, I went through a brief period during my early teens where I kinda held paganistic/naturalistic type beliefs. As a young kid in a rural area before the information age I had no access to any sources of information on such things so it was a “religion” of my own making. Totally thought up and conceived by myself. I never really “practiced” it so much as I just thought about it. Oddly I never could convince myself it was real and finally rejected it as silly. Then I took up the “Deist” claim more as a social convenience than a belief. Finally I realized also this was silly and rejected that and took my atheist title.
Now I’ll call you on your total malarkey
“I think that non-believers get their motivation partly from not wanting to acknowledge or answer to a higher power whether it is state sanctioned or non sanctioned.”
I wrote all that gobbledygook above because its obvious as you stated you don’t understand “unbelievers”. While I can only speak for myself in all honesty, I can also speak up for quite a few “unbelievers” I’ve come to know over the years, and I can only say this is total malarkey. As I described above, my unbelief, and from my experience the unbelief of many others, boils down to not having “faith” in things without evidence. The “not wanting to acknowledge or answer to a higher power” never entered the equation and has never been a motivation.
I already acknowledge and answer to a higher power, to me that higher power is simply humanity and the Earth we live on. Its tangible and real to me and I have plenty of evidence it exists. Thanks both to biological and cultural influences I have empathy for my fellow humans and even the other creatures I share the Earth with. There are practical, reasonable, logical, and even emotional reasons for this and it is all based on evidence that I can carefully evaluate. To me, acknowledging a power for which there is no evidence for is not only impossible (after all I would be either making up something in my own head or relying on what some one else made up in their own head and wrote in a book) but also would cheapen and weaken my own moral system. After all I would in my heart know that my “higher power” was made up and why answer to an imaginary “higher power”?
This is all a big tangent to the real issue as charles stated above, but I think its important to describe so that we understand so that we can lessen hostilities amongst us all and have reasoned and logical discourse not emotional.
Moonpie,
In case you are interested here is the scientific account of how the solar system and the earth was formed.
Some will see some minor errors in this and they are due to the massive condensing job I had to do to make this brief and understandable.
As matter began to condense and stars began to form, one such star appeared where the Sun now appears within the Milky Way Galaxy. After igniting with fusion and burning its usable hydrogen and other larger elements, the star exploded, sending matter out in all directions (is that too cool!.) Once again, through gravitational forces, this matter eventually cooled and collected in a few key areas, forming the planets and the asteroid belt. The asteroid belt is simply an early form of the collection of matter that was not able to completely form a planet due to Jupiter’s gravity. One early planet collided with the earth. It basicaly fused with the earth but knocked off a big chunk that formed our moon. In the meantime, a smaller star began to form at the center of the previous explosion and our Sun started its fusion process again. This is our present sun.
After a long time life began to form and to me, how that happened is the most exquisite mystery in the universe.
Where I began with “matter began to condense”- That would have been about 3 billion years ago and about 12 billion years after the big bang. At a trillioth of a second after the big bang hot gases filled the observable universe.
Before the big bang there was a point of something about the size of a marble that had immesuarable mass. It is reasonable to speculate that no one will ever know what it did consist of (my second most excuisite mystery in the universe.) To me, when that sigularity was unleashed, that is where I believe that I can virtually stare into the face of my creator.
See you around Mike. Thank you for your goodwill.
Dale, you wrote “Before the big bang there was a point of something about the size of a marble that had immesuarable mass. It is reasonable to speculate that no one will ever know what it did consist of (my second most excuisite mystery in the universe.) To me, when that sigularity was unleashed, that is where I believe that I can virtually stare into the face of my creator. ”
Are you saying that the universe was once “marble sized” or did I overlook something in your earlier “condensed” post?
I, too, wonder where the pre-”big bang” material originated….I have my own theory though!
You also mention “creator”?
John, thanks for reading my “total malarkey.” And, yes, that relationship with Christ is far greater than sliced bread.
Let’s say that you are correct in that there is no God. Good deeds, charity, help to mankind can be and is practiced by all regardless of their “future” beliefs and I am only “out” of the time I have spent serving God. We die and are buried and what happens afterwards depends on how well the enbalmer or cremator does his job. However, if my faith is founded, then there is an eternal home for the faithful far beyond human comprehension that will endure forever, and an alternative place not quite so nice and eternal seperation from God for those who are not. I don’t see how I can lose either way.
Yes, Moonpie. Scientists are able to wind back the cosmological clock until about 14.5 billion years ago to the singularity. At less than a trillionth of a second before the bang the universe was compressed into a point some say the size of a marble but some show equations that show the singularity about the size of a ball in a ball point pen; I’m not sweating the small stuff. That point had infinite density and heat. Something happened that unleashed all that energy and there is a stong theory called cosmological inflation that shows the bang filling our observed universe with the present laws of physics and chemistry in less than a trillionth of a second.
This is one of the only times I allow myself a give slight supernatural credit to a force which I call my creator. That makes me a deist as were many of the founding fathers. This is also the first phylisophical argument for the existence of god and is known as the “first cause argument.” Most scientists and engineers will tell you that (to greatly simplify this) in any series of events there must be the first cause event. But of course then one must face the question of what was there before the event or entity creating the first cause. That leads to the statement that nothing come from nothing- philosophical arguments are one of my hobbies. The others are the Ontological Argument, The Argument from Design ( the IDers love this), and the Moral Argument. You can type any one of these into a search engine and get all the poop yourself. It is very interesting and quite facinating to read about.
That is where my superstitious side ends though and there is no proof that the bible is divinely inspired or that some god annuls the laws of the universe to answer someones prayers, et. The bible is merely an ancient book of myths written by the ancients to accomplish 2 things. One was to try to explain their existence. The other was an
attempt to give authority to the imposed morals dictated by the leaders.
They did not realize then that they did not need a god to improve the moral situation- all they needed to do was begin teaching in a value system where the value of not killing, cheating, etc. were shown to be the best for society. They instinctively knew these values were important to the safe and orderly continuance of society but they elected to impose the will of god on people, probably because they thought the people would conform better that way. A monster was born. For me, science is my religion and God shows himself to me through nature.
Just keep the myths and fables out of our public schools!
Moonpie,
“I don’t see how I can lose either way.”
What you are proposing is a form of Pascal’s Wager. It’s most basic error is that you assume only 2 possibilities after we die, your God or no gods. When in accuality there are an infinite number of possibilities.
Here’s one way you lose:
You are worshiping the wrong God/Gods. They are extremely ticked off that you worshiped false gods instead of them and send you to eternal “damnation”.
Yes, John, Pacal’s wager also states that if you are believing in Jesus to hedge your bet on getting to heaven then Jesus will know that and you are out.
John and Dale,
I guess it goes back to the old faith thing. My faith teaches that there is but one God in the form of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, called the Trinity, and only two choices. If I thought that there were other gods I would have to honor some other type of religion instead. I guess that faith is hard to understand if someone is not blessed with it. When you allow Christ into your heart, faith is easier to understand. I don’t like to throw out a lot of Bible verses, but maybe this one will help explain it better.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I hope that you two gentlemen, and all other respondants to this blog, whatever views you may have, are blessed in a very great way.
I feel the love. Thank you Moonpie.
Moonpie,
“I guess it goes back to the old faith thing.”
Yep I guess so and that’s the thing I apparenlty don’t have the capacity for.
Faith is an illogical thing, (not a bad thing, as there are many illogical things I like as well, such as love, beauty, etc.), but when you try to apply logic to it you end up with silly things like apologetics, creationism, or Pascal’s Wager
.
I take it that your faith is predicated on the christian bible.
The bible is so full of absurdities, contradictions, and inconsistencies that there is no concievable way that someone with the qualities you attribute your god could let such a piece of garbage be written in his name. It would be too embarrasing.
Mark Twain called the Mormon bible Chloroform in Print. The christian bible is right next to it. I will grant you that like any ancient writing, the bible does provide some insights and a bit of history as well, but make no mystake; the bible started being written a thousand years before Moses and Abraham. It is a collection of verbal stories and traditions that were handed down from earlier people from Babylon as well as Egypt (guess what? The Israelites were held captive in both of those places) and shows very clearly that those people were highly superstitious dunderheads that got culturally conditioned by their “leaders.” Religion is referred to as a virus of the mind by some scholars. Religion evolved just like everything else. People of most religions today are merely evolved pagans still trying to figure out how to get out of dyling. And guess what? We are still colletively a bunch of superstitious dunderheads trying to figure out how to get out of dying. I’ll grant you one thing, religion is pervasive and thus so successful in the same way that viruses are successful.
If there were a devil and he could get a book published it would be the bible because so much grief and sorrow has been delt out in it’s name- same as the Koran.
Having had contact in my youth with the Conservative faith I knew the code words and the dogma of the Christian Taliban. I decided to investigate and became “reborn” and baptised a few years ago and joined a babtist church. Knowing how their little brains work and their proclivity towards being manipulated, I was asked to become a Deacon within a year. Things have changed greatly with them in the last thirty years.
One of the biggest changes is the overt political indoctrination. It is never done in the church but through the bible studies in peoples homes and by a lay member who is usually from out of state and stays for a while then moves on and very soon another person from out of state arrives and takes on the bible studies. In these bible studies you are told exactly how God wanted each phrase in his book interpreted and why God loves the Republicans. Any suggestion of a different possible interpretation or questioning of the dogma is met by the whole group going dead silent and all of them staring at the questioner until he is obviously uncomfortable. There is no tolerance for questioning the Truth.
I have come to believe, for many reasons, that the driving force behind the Fundamentalist Movement is the Vatican. Call me paranoid if you will but the drive for political power by the fundies has prohibited and blocked many abortion rights and now there is starting to be a movement to limit or block access to oral contraceptives and even condoms for AIDS prevention in the third world. Also sex ed for our children. Thirty years ago these were strictly Papist policy and unknown to the Baptists.
I am planning to write a feature length article on my experiances soon. Hopefully It will get published.