So, I'd like to get a little...religious...here for a minute. Yes, I know. Don't run away screaming, pweese?
Christine O'Donnel, the new Republican/Tea Party darling, has definitely stated that God wanted her to run for public office. And do something.
Yeah. Right.
And He came to you in a cloud and told you this, did He not?
You see, I really don't buy into that kind of thing. Something tells me that God, at the heart of it all, just...really doesn't care who is in office. I'm reading an excellent book right now, "The Myth of a Christian Nation" by Greg Boyd. Wonderful book. In it, he talks about the kingdom of the world (Satan's world, which he owns and rules) vs. the kingdom of God- the heavenly kingdom God runs and owns. His whole point is that God doesn't concern Himself so much with the kingdom of the world because it's all fundamentally Satan's. He's more concerned with Christians showing Calvary love to those around them and showing the kingdom of God in everyday life.
Add to that the fact that Jesus Christ never once encouraged political action. In fact, he discouraged it, and refused to talk about political issues of the day. When people tried to get him to take a stance on taxation by the Roman empire, he pointed out that since, according to the people around him, Caesar was an idolatrous phoney, why not give the idolatrous phoney what he wants- that is, his money back?
As a Christian myself, I get antsy when people claim God's endorsement when they're running for office, mostly because I see it as superficial. As this gentleman pointed out, it's a copout on some level, because it makes it so that the candidate doesn't have to take a stance. "Where do you draw your inspiration?" "The Bible." "Who's your hero?" "Jesus."
Really? Are we in Sunday School now?
More than that, I regard it as using God. Politicians use God to reach a goal. They know that by appealing to the broadest base of public support- religious Americans- they can get power. Because, after all, what will get you more votes- answering the question of why you want to be in office with the honest "Power and money" or "Because I want to turn America back to her roots, back to God"?
Which is sad, of course. Americans eat it up, not realizing the fundamental hypocrisy that goes on there. American politicians who call for God's endorsement also often seem to support the most contrary things- they support big business, which keeps millions of people the world over in bondage to a system of virtual enslavement. They support wars that are unjust and that foster rhetoric like "kill them all and let God sort them out."
Somehow- and this might just be me- I don't think that Jesus Christ, the same man who said that the greatest should become least and that all should love their enemies, would quite approve.
So perhaps it isn't so much that politicians use God...they just create their own that approves of everything they do. As Anne Lamott said- "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
Showing posts with label religious. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Wall of Separation
"The wall separating church and state has functioned as a one-way wall, primarily restraining government and doing little to restrain religious individuals or religious organizations that are accorded the same rights to free speech, publication, association, a redress of grievance that other secular entities and individuals are accorded. So that has allowed religion to robustly serve as a moral code to the conscience of the country. No restriction on the ability of religion to speak to political issues, nor should there be. The limitations that are built in come the other way. The government cannot impose religious views on any person. Cannot choose up between religions, cannot choose religion over a nonreligion, can't endorse religious messages or oppose religious messages. It definitely shouldn't be funding overtly religious activity."
Rabbi David Saperstein, quoted in "The Holy Vote" by Ray Suarez
So I have to say: I agree with this guy. He states what I've tried to say numerous times quite simply and eloquently.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
God, the gospel, and Glenn Beck
This was an excellent article.
By Russell Moore
A Mormon television star stands in front of the Lincoln Memorial and calls American Christians to revival. He assembles some evangelical celebrities to give testimonies, and then preaches a God and country revivalism that leaves the evangelicals cheering that they've heard the gospel, right there in the nation's capital.
The news media pronounces him the new leader of America's Christian conservative movement, and a flock of America's Christian conservatives have no problem with that.
If you'd told me that ten years ago, I would have assumed it was from the pages of an evangelical apocalyptic novel about the end-times. But it's not. It's from this week's headlines. And it is a scandal.
Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, of course, is that Mormon at the center of all this. Beck isn't the problem. He's an entrepreneur, he's brilliant, and, hats off to him, he knows his market (see video news report). Latter-day Saints have every right to speak, with full religious liberty, in the public square. I'm quite willing to work with Mormons on various issues, as citizens working for the common good. What concerns me here is not what this says about Beck or the "Tea Party" or any other entertainment or political figure. What concerns me is about what this says about the Christian churches in the United States.
It's taken us a long time to get here, in this plummet from Francis Schaeffer to Glenn Beck. In order to be this gullible, American Christians have had to endure years of vacuous talk about undefined "revival" and "turning America back to God" that was less about anything uniquely Christian than about, at best, a generically theistic civil religion and, at worst, some partisan political movement.
Read the rest.
By Russell Moore
A Mormon television star stands in front of the Lincoln Memorial and calls American Christians to revival. He assembles some evangelical celebrities to give testimonies, and then preaches a God and country revivalism that leaves the evangelicals cheering that they've heard the gospel, right there in the nation's capital.
The news media pronounces him the new leader of America's Christian conservative movement, and a flock of America's Christian conservatives have no problem with that.
If you'd told me that ten years ago, I would have assumed it was from the pages of an evangelical apocalyptic novel about the end-times. But it's not. It's from this week's headlines. And it is a scandal.
Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, of course, is that Mormon at the center of all this. Beck isn't the problem. He's an entrepreneur, he's brilliant, and, hats off to him, he knows his market (see video news report). Latter-day Saints have every right to speak, with full religious liberty, in the public square. I'm quite willing to work with Mormons on various issues, as citizens working for the common good. What concerns me here is not what this says about Beck or the "Tea Party" or any other entertainment or political figure. What concerns me is about what this says about the Christian churches in the United States.
It's taken us a long time to get here, in this plummet from Francis Schaeffer to Glenn Beck. In order to be this gullible, American Christians have had to endure years of vacuous talk about undefined "revival" and "turning America back to God" that was less about anything uniquely Christian than about, at best, a generically theistic civil religion and, at worst, some partisan political movement.
Read the rest.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Parent Company Trap
Jon Stewart critiques the folks over on Fox News over their obsessive (or not so much) tracing of "where Rauf's money is coming from."
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Parent Company Trap | ||||
| ||||
Now let me say- I don't think the majority of people over at Fox News are necessarily stupid. Misguided, perhaps, though no more misguided than the folks over at say, CNN or ABC or CBS or the NYTimes or the Washington Post.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
The Cordoba House- Again
So this issue has once again been brought to my attention. Here is a short, probably not-so-sweet, but to the point summary of my position.
I do think it is a bit insensitive of Cordoba to build this so close, especially when they've seen the reaction. However, there are some facts that cannot be disputed. They bought the property, hence they have the right to do whatever they want with it- property rights. They have a religion, and are free to practice it- freedom of religion. They have a right to worship together- freedom of association.
However, I do think one thing needs to be remembered- Cordoba and Imam Rauf did not kill those 3,000 on 9/11. The guys who killed those 3,000 are dead. It's useless to whine about them now. It's over. Can't cry over spilled milk. Yes, what happened was terrible. I condole with the families who lost loved ones- both Muslim and Christian and athiest, and whatever other belief systems may have been represented, because I'm sure the families of those 19 men miss them just as much.
But we also can't forget what has risen out of this. It's killed hundreds of thousands of civilians all over the world. It's divided Americans even more starkly along lines of left and right. It's made Americans so gun-shy they freak over the slightest evidence of a possible terror attack- while the rest of the world laughs at our naive belief that we are the only country that has ever been attacked by a terrorist. We lambast a whole race of people for the actions of 19 men. 19 men attacked us. There are roughly 1.5 billion Muslims on the globe, and the number is rising. You do the math. 19 is such a tiny percentage, I'm pretty sure you'd have to put it in decimals. Even if you put in the couple hundred estimated insurgents involved in al Qaeda, the Taliban, and like groups (and that membership is growing too...I wonder why?), you've still got a small, small percentage. That's like saying that, out of the couple billion Christians in the globe, all of them should be treated with as much disdain as we all treat Westboro Baptist Church. That doesn't make sense, and nor does ostracizing and behaving with such venom towards an entire sect of people.
To summarize- yes, I feel for the families of the 9/11 victims. I do think Cordoba should look into moving this community center/mosque somewhere else. But in the meantime- Constitutionally, they can do whatever they want with the property. And I think, that if this does begin to happen, and happens, we should let it be. Move past it. We're all adults. Osama bin Laden would love nothing more than for us all to jump on Muslims and demand they shut down their mosques. Do you know how much of a PR field-day that would be for him? His recruiting levels would go up immediately! The evil Americans, denying what they profess to believe in, and repressing the poor, beleaguered Muslims. Yes, we may look at that and think that he's misrepresenting the situation...but we know about the media, and we know that's exactly what bin Laden and his ilk will say.
Let's not give him the satisfaction.
I do think it is a bit insensitive of Cordoba to build this so close, especially when they've seen the reaction. However, there are some facts that cannot be disputed. They bought the property, hence they have the right to do whatever they want with it- property rights. They have a religion, and are free to practice it- freedom of religion. They have a right to worship together- freedom of association.
However, I do think one thing needs to be remembered- Cordoba and Imam Rauf did not kill those 3,000 on 9/11. The guys who killed those 3,000 are dead. It's useless to whine about them now. It's over. Can't cry over spilled milk. Yes, what happened was terrible. I condole with the families who lost loved ones- both Muslim and Christian and athiest, and whatever other belief systems may have been represented, because I'm sure the families of those 19 men miss them just as much.
But we also can't forget what has risen out of this. It's killed hundreds of thousands of civilians all over the world. It's divided Americans even more starkly along lines of left and right. It's made Americans so gun-shy they freak over the slightest evidence of a possible terror attack- while the rest of the world laughs at our naive belief that we are the only country that has ever been attacked by a terrorist. We lambast a whole race of people for the actions of 19 men. 19 men attacked us. There are roughly 1.5 billion Muslims on the globe, and the number is rising. You do the math. 19 is such a tiny percentage, I'm pretty sure you'd have to put it in decimals. Even if you put in the couple hundred estimated insurgents involved in al Qaeda, the Taliban, and like groups (and that membership is growing too...I wonder why?), you've still got a small, small percentage. That's like saying that, out of the couple billion Christians in the globe, all of them should be treated with as much disdain as we all treat Westboro Baptist Church. That doesn't make sense, and nor does ostracizing and behaving with such venom towards an entire sect of people.
To summarize- yes, I feel for the families of the 9/11 victims. I do think Cordoba should look into moving this community center/mosque somewhere else. But in the meantime- Constitutionally, they can do whatever they want with the property. And I think, that if this does begin to happen, and happens, we should let it be. Move past it. We're all adults. Osama bin Laden would love nothing more than for us all to jump on Muslims and demand they shut down their mosques. Do you know how much of a PR field-day that would be for him? His recruiting levels would go up immediately! The evil Americans, denying what they profess to believe in, and repressing the poor, beleaguered Muslims. Yes, we may look at that and think that he's misrepresenting the situation...but we know about the media, and we know that's exactly what bin Laden and his ilk will say.
Let's not give him the satisfaction.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Legislation and Morality
This is an essay I wrote recently, and thought I'd share. ;) Just so you know- it is written from a Christian perspective, and towards Christians. If you can't handle that, don't read it. ;)
Morality. Legislation. The First Amendment. ACLU cases. The Christian Right. The discussions linked with these subjects could go on for millennia. With that in mind, I don’t think I can offer anything new or revolutionary on this subject…but I’m rather tired of having to present my views over and over again. So this work could be considered the writings of an exasperated teenager who doesn’t want to keep explaining the same stuff.
The question I will be dealing with is this- do we, or do we not, have the Constitutional right to make rules and laws on the basis of matters of conscience? I would say no, and this is my attempt to explain why.
For starters, I would like to say a word to the Christian reader- I am morally and ethically opposed to many of the issues I outline in these pages. Personally, the idea of a thing like homosexuality or drug abuse instantly give me strong feelings of disgust and pity for the poor souls trapped in the system. The thought of abortion gives me the feeling of nausea, coupled with indignation on behalf of the babies whose lives are so atrociously cut off in the very beginnings of life.
Note that in this work, when I refer to ‘Christians’, I am speaking of those that ascribe to some form of Christian denomination, be it Episcopalian, Mormon, Catholic, or Baptist.
Moral Explanation
I would like to say a word about the nature of morality. Morality, or moral, is defined as “concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles.” It could also be defined as “a personal system or code of behavior, governed by the conscience.” We will operate on these definitions.
An example of a moral issue would be homosexuality or abortion, and drug or alcohol use. These things are governed only by one’s own conscience and vision of morality.
God and You versus God and the Government
There is a substantial difference between the personal relationship between the Christian and God and the relationship between God and the government, or God and the American people. God cannot have a ‘relationship’, per se, with the last two at all- they are, by their very nature, incorporeal and incompatible with the nature of God.
God is an individual persuasion. If you believe in God, only you can believe in God. That belief cannot carry on to your children through DNA, that belief cannot bleed into the people around you merely because of your proximity to them. In the same way, you cannot force a belief of God on or into those around you.
A true belief cannot be forced, in any account. A forced conversion is no conversion at all. In fact, God wants us to choose Him, not come to Him through force, coercion, or any other means besides a willing, conscious decision to seek Him.
In the Bible, there are several references where God states His thoughts on choosing- in this context, choosing who you would serve. Joshua 24:15, Proverbs 1:29, Proverbs 3:31, and Isaiah 7:15 all talk about a person’s ‘choice’- be it good or bad, it will be rewarded or punished by God, and God alone. God also gave us thinking minds, He did not make us robots. He intended us to think and reason with ourselves about His existence.
But by trying to force our moral beliefs about what God has said, or what we think is good, we are literally trying to force our Bible, religion, and God down others’ throats.
The first amendment of the United States constitution strictly forbids religious (moral) favoritism by the government. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Notice this does not prohibit individual governmental officials and employees from engaging in religious activities outside work nor, really, from making mention of God in public discourse.
The kinds of things that would be out of keeping with this amendment would be ritualized, proscribed prayer- to any god- in a public school, the witnessing to a student by a teacher, or an instance like ‘Roy’s Rock’
The First Amendment and Other Religions
Christians often throw temper tantrums because the government ‘favors other religions’- although it doesn’t, and can’t. I remember an unsubstantiated story I once heard. It talked about an unnamed school where Muslim children were permitted to bow to Mecca, in accordance with their religious beliefs, but Christian children were not permitted to bow their heads in prayer to God.
It is a story overtly designed to spark righteous indignation on behalf of the poor, persecuted little Christian children. The only problem with this rumor is that it’s not true. Nowhere have I found evidence substantiating this piece of Christian Right propaganda. Such a case as the one outlined above would be inherently and blatantly against the first amendment.
The story above brings out the great ‘fighting spirit’ in many. But what if the story went more like this- “There was this school where Christian children were permitted to pray to God, but Muslim children were ostracized and persecuted because they were not permitted to bow to Mecca.”
I can almost guarantee that, if the situation were to be so reversed, the reaction would be quite different in Christian circles. There would be no reaction; rather, the teachers would be acclaimed as heroes of the faith.
It is a sad trend that I have observed- often Christians seem to be under the impression that the first amendment grants freedom of religion and belief only to those of the Judeo-Christian persuasion. They seem to think the first amendment goes something like this- “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, unless that religion be Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless it be a belief contrary to Christianity.” Often, with this skewed reading, Christians see themselves as being persecuted when, really, they’re just not being given the preferred place in our country’s religious (or political) sphere.
As hard as it is for some to admit it, we do have alternate belief systems in this country. Wikipedia has a list of the most prevalent religions in the United States. According to their statistics, out of the three hundred million people in the US, some forty percent of the population do not ascribe to Christian beliefs. Sixteen percent don’t even believe in a god! Do we deny the rights of that forty percent simply because we think we are right?
Private and Individual Morality
As we established earlier, morality is a private conviction. One’s view and standards of morality are as individual as one’s fingerprint. Even Christians, who use God’s standard of morality, differ in some ways on what is right and wrong.
Since morality is so individual, why do so many think we should enforce morality on others, whether through the law or religious suppression? That is akin to trying to make everyone drive the same car. But who decides which car? Do we make everyone drive a fifteen passenger van because some families need them, or do we go with a smaller five-seater car? Once we decide that, what maker do we go with- Ford, Dodge, Chevy? Everyone’s needs and wants are completely different, and we cannot make such a decision for them.
Trying to enforce a vision of morality is not feasible, for the simple reason that there are millions of individual beliefs about morality. Whose morality do we enforce?
One True Morality
Human beings as a whole have an innate desire to want to enforce what they want on the people around them. It’s a perfectly human impulse, and Christians are not immune to it. In fact, in some ways, we’re more susceptible to it, since often times we have the tendency to get into the attitude of “I read the Bible, so I’m righteous!”
Every human goes to some source for his or her beliefs and morality. Be it the teachings of a prophet, a holy book, or just an inner conviction, all morality traces back to something. Christians go to the Bible. I do as well. I believe the Bible was divinely inspired by God, the Creator of the universe.
When debating what should or should not be legislated, Christians often simply run to the Bible. There is no doubt that the Bible holds valuable, enlightened, divine moral guidance. But as I’ve said before, it is but one view of morality out of thousands, and it is not our guidebook in this country as a whole. I believe it is the true view of morality, but my neighbor may not. Can I impose my view of morality on him?
Moral Societal Issues
Abortion. Gay Marriage. Drug use. Alcohol use. Smoking. Divorce. Adultery.
All these things are, or were divisive, controversial issues. At one time or another, since the beginning of time, people have attempted to end social ills, whether via evangelization, legislation, or conquest.
The moral issues outlined above are a bit fuzzier than other, more clear moral issues, like murder or theft. When someone murders another, they have clearly violated the rights of the murdered individual. Hence, they lose their rights beyond those afforded prisoners- silence, counsel, and trial. Some religious expressions, such as a jihad, would fall under the jurisdiction of murder laws- the jihadist has taken the rights of another individual, and so loses his own.
In the issues above however, the only person who is harmed is the person himself. He is harming his own body. Beyond repair, perhaps, but if he wishes to take such sweeping liberties with his body, he is the one who will have to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions. Spiritually, of course, there are consequences. He is harming not only himself, but the people around him- spiritually. In a secular sense however (the way our government should look at things), the only person who is harmed is that individual.
Some say that things like drugs or alcohol so alter someone’s mind that they can hurt others. But if they do, they must take responsibility, regardless. If they kill someone driving drunk, they will have to step up and face the music. But that’s only an ‘if.’ Just because something can happen when one is drunk, doesn’t mean it will.
Christians throughout history have tried to push their ideas of morality upon the general population. The Puritans passed laws against dancing, drinking, and adultery- and made the non-Puritans in the colony abide by them as well, creating quite a bit of resentment. While yes, drinking and adultery are unchristian, not everyone is Christian.
The history of freedom of religion and moral legislation is quite interesting, especially in light of the ‘Christian Right’ movement today. During the early years of our Republic, they were not even interested in outlawing anything. In fact, the Baptists were some of the most outspoken proponents of the first amendment and its freedom of religion clause!
It was a long time before anyone wanted to push for morally-based legislation. That was when legislation like prohibition came about. But Christians significantly changed. At first, they were dead-set on outlawing things like adultery and smoking. Then it became divorce and drinking. Obviously, divorce has become quite normal, and drinking is not quite as big a lobby nowadays, and the accepted bandwagons at this time are homosexuality and drugs. Why the change?
Of course, we have not only Christian moral legislation, but liberal moral legislation. Granted, their moral issues are significantly different from Christians’. They place more emphasis on helping the poor and third world countries- commendable goals. Besides that, we have Buddhist morality, Confucian morality, Muslim morality…
But whose morality do we decide on?
Legislating Morality
So is legislating morality ever right? And most importantly, is it Constitutional?
Legislation is commonly understood to be laws- laws that are already on the books, or proposed laws. From what we now understand of the nature of morality, I think it is safe to say that legislating morality cannot feasibly be done. The many acknowledged moralities and religions make it virtually impossible to legislate according to them.
The Constitution strictly forbids the establishment of a religion. Included in that clause would be the instatement of religiously motivated, or morally motivated laws.
If not Legislation, then What?
So if we’re not going to legislate to rid ourselves of the immoral acts in our midst, then what do we do? Do we sit idly by and permit it?
Far from it. We have the greatest ally in the universe, who works everyday in lives and hearts. It is His responsibility to work in hearts, not the government’s. By wishing to institute morality-based laws we are, in effect, attempting to force the government to play Holy Spirit.
In fact, the only way to cure moral issues is through the transforming power of Jesus Christ. If you truly wish to see a change, you must evangelize and witness, and let the Holy Spirit do His work- rather than forcing the government to do it for Him. The only way to get people to see the error of their ways is through evangelization and the working of Holy Ghost- not the working of my local representative.
Morality. Legislation. The First Amendment. ACLU cases. The Christian Right. The discussions linked with these subjects could go on for millennia. With that in mind, I don’t think I can offer anything new or revolutionary on this subject…but I’m rather tired of having to present my views over and over again. So this work could be considered the writings of an exasperated teenager who doesn’t want to keep explaining the same stuff.
The question I will be dealing with is this- do we, or do we not, have the Constitutional right to make rules and laws on the basis of matters of conscience? I would say no, and this is my attempt to explain why.
For starters, I would like to say a word to the Christian reader- I am morally and ethically opposed to many of the issues I outline in these pages. Personally, the idea of a thing like homosexuality or drug abuse instantly give me strong feelings of disgust and pity for the poor souls trapped in the system. The thought of abortion gives me the feeling of nausea, coupled with indignation on behalf of the babies whose lives are so atrociously cut off in the very beginnings of life.
Note that in this work, when I refer to ‘Christians’, I am speaking of those that ascribe to some form of Christian denomination, be it Episcopalian, Mormon, Catholic, or Baptist.
Moral Explanation
I would like to say a word about the nature of morality. Morality, or moral, is defined as “concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles.” It could also be defined as “a personal system or code of behavior, governed by the conscience.” We will operate on these definitions.
An example of a moral issue would be homosexuality or abortion, and drug or alcohol use. These things are governed only by one’s own conscience and vision of morality.
God and You versus God and the Government
There is a substantial difference between the personal relationship between the Christian and God and the relationship between God and the government, or God and the American people. God cannot have a ‘relationship’, per se, with the last two at all- they are, by their very nature, incorporeal and incompatible with the nature of God.
God is an individual persuasion. If you believe in God, only you can believe in God. That belief cannot carry on to your children through DNA, that belief cannot bleed into the people around you merely because of your proximity to them. In the same way, you cannot force a belief of God on or into those around you.
A true belief cannot be forced, in any account. A forced conversion is no conversion at all. In fact, God wants us to choose Him, not come to Him through force, coercion, or any other means besides a willing, conscious decision to seek Him.
In the Bible, there are several references where God states His thoughts on choosing- in this context, choosing who you would serve. Joshua 24:15, Proverbs 1:29, Proverbs 3:31, and Isaiah 7:15 all talk about a person’s ‘choice’- be it good or bad, it will be rewarded or punished by God, and God alone. God also gave us thinking minds, He did not make us robots. He intended us to think and reason with ourselves about His existence.
But by trying to force our moral beliefs about what God has said, or what we think is good, we are literally trying to force our Bible, religion, and God down others’ throats.
The first amendment of the United States constitution strictly forbids religious (moral) favoritism by the government. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Notice this does not prohibit individual governmental officials and employees from engaging in religious activities outside work nor, really, from making mention of God in public discourse.
The kinds of things that would be out of keeping with this amendment would be ritualized, proscribed prayer- to any god- in a public school, the witnessing to a student by a teacher, or an instance like ‘Roy’s Rock’
The First Amendment and Other Religions
Christians often throw temper tantrums because the government ‘favors other religions’- although it doesn’t, and can’t. I remember an unsubstantiated story I once heard. It talked about an unnamed school where Muslim children were permitted to bow to Mecca, in accordance with their religious beliefs, but Christian children were not permitted to bow their heads in prayer to God.
It is a story overtly designed to spark righteous indignation on behalf of the poor, persecuted little Christian children. The only problem with this rumor is that it’s not true. Nowhere have I found evidence substantiating this piece of Christian Right propaganda. Such a case as the one outlined above would be inherently and blatantly against the first amendment.
The story above brings out the great ‘fighting spirit’ in many. But what if the story went more like this- “There was this school where Christian children were permitted to pray to God, but Muslim children were ostracized and persecuted because they were not permitted to bow to Mecca.”
I can almost guarantee that, if the situation were to be so reversed, the reaction would be quite different in Christian circles. There would be no reaction; rather, the teachers would be acclaimed as heroes of the faith.
It is a sad trend that I have observed- often Christians seem to be under the impression that the first amendment grants freedom of religion and belief only to those of the Judeo-Christian persuasion. They seem to think the first amendment goes something like this- “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, unless that religion be Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless it be a belief contrary to Christianity.” Often, with this skewed reading, Christians see themselves as being persecuted when, really, they’re just not being given the preferred place in our country’s religious (or political) sphere.
As hard as it is for some to admit it, we do have alternate belief systems in this country. Wikipedia has a list of the most prevalent religions in the United States. According to their statistics, out of the three hundred million people in the US, some forty percent of the population do not ascribe to Christian beliefs. Sixteen percent don’t even believe in a god! Do we deny the rights of that forty percent simply because we think we are right?
Private and Individual Morality
As we established earlier, morality is a private conviction. One’s view and standards of morality are as individual as one’s fingerprint. Even Christians, who use God’s standard of morality, differ in some ways on what is right and wrong.
Since morality is so individual, why do so many think we should enforce morality on others, whether through the law or religious suppression? That is akin to trying to make everyone drive the same car. But who decides which car? Do we make everyone drive a fifteen passenger van because some families need them, or do we go with a smaller five-seater car? Once we decide that, what maker do we go with- Ford, Dodge, Chevy? Everyone’s needs and wants are completely different, and we cannot make such a decision for them.
Trying to enforce a vision of morality is not feasible, for the simple reason that there are millions of individual beliefs about morality. Whose morality do we enforce?
One True Morality
Human beings as a whole have an innate desire to want to enforce what they want on the people around them. It’s a perfectly human impulse, and Christians are not immune to it. In fact, in some ways, we’re more susceptible to it, since often times we have the tendency to get into the attitude of “I read the Bible, so I’m righteous!”
Every human goes to some source for his or her beliefs and morality. Be it the teachings of a prophet, a holy book, or just an inner conviction, all morality traces back to something. Christians go to the Bible. I do as well. I believe the Bible was divinely inspired by God, the Creator of the universe.
When debating what should or should not be legislated, Christians often simply run to the Bible. There is no doubt that the Bible holds valuable, enlightened, divine moral guidance. But as I’ve said before, it is but one view of morality out of thousands, and it is not our guidebook in this country as a whole. I believe it is the true view of morality, but my neighbor may not. Can I impose my view of morality on him?
Moral Societal Issues
Abortion. Gay Marriage. Drug use. Alcohol use. Smoking. Divorce. Adultery.
All these things are, or were divisive, controversial issues. At one time or another, since the beginning of time, people have attempted to end social ills, whether via evangelization, legislation, or conquest.
The moral issues outlined above are a bit fuzzier than other, more clear moral issues, like murder or theft. When someone murders another, they have clearly violated the rights of the murdered individual. Hence, they lose their rights beyond those afforded prisoners- silence, counsel, and trial. Some religious expressions, such as a jihad, would fall under the jurisdiction of murder laws- the jihadist has taken the rights of another individual, and so loses his own.
In the issues above however, the only person who is harmed is the person himself. He is harming his own body. Beyond repair, perhaps, but if he wishes to take such sweeping liberties with his body, he is the one who will have to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions. Spiritually, of course, there are consequences. He is harming not only himself, but the people around him- spiritually. In a secular sense however (the way our government should look at things), the only person who is harmed is that individual.
Some say that things like drugs or alcohol so alter someone’s mind that they can hurt others. But if they do, they must take responsibility, regardless. If they kill someone driving drunk, they will have to step up and face the music. But that’s only an ‘if.’ Just because something can happen when one is drunk, doesn’t mean it will.
Christians throughout history have tried to push their ideas of morality upon the general population. The Puritans passed laws against dancing, drinking, and adultery- and made the non-Puritans in the colony abide by them as well, creating quite a bit of resentment. While yes, drinking and adultery are unchristian, not everyone is Christian.
The history of freedom of religion and moral legislation is quite interesting, especially in light of the ‘Christian Right’ movement today. During the early years of our Republic, they were not even interested in outlawing anything. In fact, the Baptists were some of the most outspoken proponents of the first amendment and its freedom of religion clause!
It was a long time before anyone wanted to push for morally-based legislation. That was when legislation like prohibition came about. But Christians significantly changed. At first, they were dead-set on outlawing things like adultery and smoking. Then it became divorce and drinking. Obviously, divorce has become quite normal, and drinking is not quite as big a lobby nowadays, and the accepted bandwagons at this time are homosexuality and drugs. Why the change?
Of course, we have not only Christian moral legislation, but liberal moral legislation. Granted, their moral issues are significantly different from Christians’. They place more emphasis on helping the poor and third world countries- commendable goals. Besides that, we have Buddhist morality, Confucian morality, Muslim morality…
But whose morality do we decide on?
Legislating Morality
So is legislating morality ever right? And most importantly, is it Constitutional?
Legislation is commonly understood to be laws- laws that are already on the books, or proposed laws. From what we now understand of the nature of morality, I think it is safe to say that legislating morality cannot feasibly be done. The many acknowledged moralities and religions make it virtually impossible to legislate according to them.
The Constitution strictly forbids the establishment of a religion. Included in that clause would be the instatement of religiously motivated, or morally motivated laws.
If not Legislation, then What?
So if we’re not going to legislate to rid ourselves of the immoral acts in our midst, then what do we do? Do we sit idly by and permit it?
Far from it. We have the greatest ally in the universe, who works everyday in lives and hearts. It is His responsibility to work in hearts, not the government’s. By wishing to institute morality-based laws we are, in effect, attempting to force the government to play Holy Spirit.
In fact, the only way to cure moral issues is through the transforming power of Jesus Christ. If you truly wish to see a change, you must evangelize and witness, and let the Holy Spirit do His work- rather than forcing the government to do it for Him. The only way to get people to see the error of their ways is through evangelization and the working of Holy Ghost- not the working of my local representative.
Friday, August 21, 2009
'In God We Trust'?
So this is more a conversation-starter than anything. Do you think that 'In God We Trust' should remain on our money?
Yes, this is one of those topics that has gotten me into trouble (numerous times) with my Republican Christian friends.
Why? Well, because I don't think it should be there. It didn't even appear on our coins until the 1800's, and wasn't mandated on both coins and paper money until the 1950's. Hence, it has little to no 'cultural' significance. Yes, yes, I know- we're a Christian nation, and all that.
But we're really not. We have Buddhists, and athiests, and Confucists, and Muslims, and all sorts of other religions here. And unless the 'god' referenced on the money is every god for each individual religion, than you can't really have it there.
There may be something in this on-going debate that I am overlooking, and if so, feel free to tell me. ;)
This post was sparked by a posting on another blog along the lines of 'vote here in favor of the motto.' So...discuss if you wish. ^.^
Yes, this is one of those topics that has gotten me into trouble (numerous times) with my Republican Christian friends.
Why? Well, because I don't think it should be there. It didn't even appear on our coins until the 1800's, and wasn't mandated on both coins and paper money until the 1950's. Hence, it has little to no 'cultural' significance. Yes, yes, I know- we're a Christian nation, and all that.
But we're really not. We have Buddhists, and athiests, and Confucists, and Muslims, and all sorts of other religions here. And unless the 'god' referenced on the money is every god for each individual religion, than you can't really have it there.
There may be something in this on-going debate that I am overlooking, and if so, feel free to tell me. ;)
This post was sparked by a posting on another blog along the lines of 'vote here in favor of the motto.' So...discuss if you wish. ^.^
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
On Gay Marriage
Okie doke, I figured it was high time I said something about this subject- I don't believe I've ever said anything about it. Now before I get started, let me make one thing clear- as a Christian, I am morally opposed to homosexuality. As a person, I'm weirded out by homosexuality. As a Libertarian, I believe in the rights and privileges of those homosexuals.
First things first- why can't we let the homosexuals get married? Oh, I know it doesn't agree with the Bible, yadayada. While I agree with that statement, in this wonderful country, the United States of America, we are not governed by the Bible. We are governed by a Constitution...which happens to be ignored largely by all parties nowadays, but its still good. So this Constitution- while it does uphold a few Biblical precepts, it also provides for the free practice of whatever we want to do. We have a few unalienable rights, like being able to practice our religion of choice, carrying a gun, the right to a jury, etc.
One of those rights is not marriage. Because marriage isn't a governmental institution. It is a...well, a human one. And sort of a religious one. The government has no business regulating who can and cannot get married- with marriage licenses, or with laws, or whatever. Oh, and on the subject of marriage licenses- those things are contracts with the government, y'know. Why? Oh, you're just getting permission from the state to get married, sort of like when you get a driver's license.
Yeah. Creepy, much? So, my thinking is- if the homosexuals want their government contract, why not let them? Its not hurting me...if they want their marriage to belong to the state, well, more power to them! To sum up- if Christians want their freedoms, they'll have to live with a little wickedness. Because, if we take away the homosexual's rights, eventually they'll come after ours. It's simple logic.
*rant over* :D
First things first- why can't we let the homosexuals get married? Oh, I know it doesn't agree with the Bible, yadayada. While I agree with that statement, in this wonderful country, the United States of America, we are not governed by the Bible. We are governed by a Constitution...which happens to be ignored largely by all parties nowadays, but its still good. So this Constitution- while it does uphold a few Biblical precepts, it also provides for the free practice of whatever we want to do. We have a few unalienable rights, like being able to practice our religion of choice, carrying a gun, the right to a jury, etc.
One of those rights is not marriage. Because marriage isn't a governmental institution. It is a...well, a human one. And sort of a religious one. The government has no business regulating who can and cannot get married- with marriage licenses, or with laws, or whatever. Oh, and on the subject of marriage licenses- those things are contracts with the government, y'know. Why? Oh, you're just getting permission from the state to get married, sort of like when you get a driver's license.
Yeah. Creepy, much? So, my thinking is- if the homosexuals want their government contract, why not let them? Its not hurting me...if they want their marriage to belong to the state, well, more power to them! To sum up- if Christians want their freedoms, they'll have to live with a little wickedness. Because, if we take away the homosexual's rights, eventually they'll come after ours. It's simple logic.
*rant over* :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
