Imagine the right’s religion -- How the self-proclaimed defenders of religious freedom are actually freedom's biggest opponents
Basically their argument can be summed up as follows: if Christianity is not forced onto the general public by law, then religious freedom is being destroyed. Of course any half-wit can clearly see that forcing people to abide by any religious doctrine is to destroy religious freedom, but these people are not concerned with the true meaning of religious freedom (that is, the freedom to believe or disbelieve whatever one so chooses, and to be free from the the religious beliefs of others), but rather they interpret "religious freedom" to mean that religious institutions and churches should be able to force their views on the general public and institute a theocracy in the government. The fact that nothing destroys religious freedom faster than a theocracy doesn't seem to concern them.
The problem is the self-righteousness that sees even non-involvement as an attack.
"The fact that nothing destroys religious freedom faster than a theocracy doesn't seem to concern them."
On a business trip, I traveled with a Baptist minister and inevitably the subject of religion came up. I had no interest in arguing for 90 minutes in a car, so I let him speak his mind. He said that he was worried by the others in his church who want to mix religion with politics. "There's a lot of Baptists at the bottom of Lake Geneva," he said.
But what is religion? Religion is not of necessity a belief in the supernatural (whatever that is) but an upholding of the merits of belief over rationality, of conviction over evidence, of righteousness (as they define) over the right to act in self interest. The greens - a religion if ever there was one.
One of the stoutest bedrocks in the foundation of the christian faith is to render under Cesar, that which is Cesar's, and unto God. that which is God's. In point of fact, separation of Church and State.
The problem is that the Anti-religionists are crying for a banishment to any mention, symbol, reference or nuance of religion in public life. Not separation, but the total ban of religion while ignoring that the reference that Jefferson made about "separation of church and state" was if you actually read it in context, referred to the separation of government from the church, NOT the reverse.
Jefferson established church services in the Capitol Building on Sunday's, why would he oppose Christians being active in government? We don't surrender our citizenship when we become Christians and just as the Statist left wing vermin currently infesting the White House are free to corrupt the constitution and and the foundation this nation was founded on, we are free to "entertain" Christian ideals in our lives politic.
And if the First Amendment only meant the removal of government from the church, and not the reverse, why then is the government forbidden from establishing an official state church? If it's not against the Constitution to establish a theocracy, don't you think we would have one by now?
Also, I'd like to know exactly what reference of Jefferson's you're referring to.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/1...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-
religion/2942387/posts
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel...
And just to be balanced, there are a few anti religionist types that question this, but even they admit there is extensive evidence that the house was used for christian services where many of the politicians attended services on Sunday.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthroc...
Again I say that the notion of separation of church and state was no to ban church influence in the state, but rather to keep government out of the church - i.e. no state church. The existance of the ten commandments in the Supreme Court is OK, but ordering the posting the first 200 pages Ocare in the front of every bodies bible would be a no-go.
Let me ask you a question, just why would the Christian church want a theocracy? For Islamist, it's a tenant of their faith, but not for Christians. If you feel that there is a edict for Christians to establish this mythical theocracy. please quote it, I am pretty versed in scripture and I don't know it. On the contrary, we are instructed to lay up treasure i heaven, not on earth.
---
That sentence contradicts itself. A state church is a method of putting religion into government, as it gives religious authority to government actions.
Holding religious services in government buildings, although not permitted today, was accepted prior to the Civil War because ministers from any and every religion could preach their sermons there. Nevertheless, there must be a distinction made between allowing religious services in government buildings and allowing religious influence in law. Although the first was permitted in Jefferson's day, the second has always been explicitly warned against. The "No Religious Test Clause" of the Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 3) is strong evidence that the Framers did indeed intend to keep religious control of government to a minimum.
And there is no biblical justification for a Christian theocracy (at least as far as I'm aware - the Bible is a big book), but many fundamentalist evangelicals nevertheless are attempting to establish one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-rich/...
If you wish that there be a litmus test of no religious overtones in any law, then you better throw out every document that forms the foundation on which the US was founded on. Christian Religious tenants WERE the influence on which this nation was founded.
So let's take a look at the paragraph you site as instilling this litmus test;
US Constitution Art VI para 3.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I guese some body who didn't actually read this might buy the notion you propose, but the text plainly states that no member of GOVERNMENT shall be subjected to a religious test in order to take up their office.
I suppose that all those left wing zealots who had cows over the possibility of that radical crazy CHRISTIAN lady from AK becoming Vice President never ACTUALLY READ this, did they?
AGAIN there is NO such ban on Christian influence in Law, legislation, architecture or anything else in the US constitution or other founding documents. Just the opposite.
Check your sources, don't just accept what they spoon feed you.
*Late Addition* Your next move is to tell me that the constitution is "A living document and evolves" - there. I saved a step.
And no, the Constitution and the other documents which formed the foundation of our nation were NOT founded in Christian doctrine. They were written by men of Christian faith, but that doesn't mean their faith was the foundation of their laws.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
Christians really run and hide from the fact that the Quran calls Jesus the Son of God and calls Mary the Virgin and the Mother of God.
Conservatives believe in a government just small enough to fit into your bedroom.
Atheism is silly. Because I can't find definitive proof of the existence of a creator, no creator exists... therefore the universe always existed (something science doesn't agree with), or "just happened". The first contradicts what we know of the universe today, the second is as big a leap of faith as the belief that the universe was created.
I find it amusing that you condemn religion in the same sentence in which you express your faith in Objectivism and hero worship of Rand.
For more information, I suggest you read the following book:
"The God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates"
by Howard Bloom
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1616145...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLZW8Deq8...
I submit that had the English stayed out of Ireland, there wouldn't have been bloodshed.
Just a theory.
The conflict in the West Bank is more cultural and political than religious.
And there has been plenty of bloodshed at Berkeley, all of it political.
How many millions died of malaria because of the "scientists" declared DDT dangerous to Eagle eggs?
Religion wasn't the cause behind Pearl Harbor or Hiroshima; politics were. And the thousands who died between didn't die because of any religious fervor.
Your list of violent acts was performed by one religion; Islam.
Children were burned alive because of contempt for the religious belief of their parents at Waco.
The Nazis were mystics, the Soviets were atheists, and either one murdered more people than all the religions of the world combined. And in less time.
And it's not either-or. Kepler, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Linneaus (discoverer of inheritance in biology), Albert Einstein and many more.
Carl Sagan, the famous atheist science-popularizer put proof of God's existence into the ending of his book, "Contact". He said of Johannes Kepler, that he wanted to read the mind of God.
Einstein is quoted as having said, 'I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.'
I submit that much of the purpose of science for many scientists and in particular of philosophy for many philosophers has *been* the search for God.
There are those who use religion for power over others. There are also those who use science to the same purpose. There are many more in both camps who merely wish to understand the universe; to understand the Walkers of Sigma 957; to read the mind of God in His creation.
The Minbari religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap0-uO8h2...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhD0hbGED...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihA4qZYWi...
While I'm at it... Delenn on John Galt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1mRkzTOu...
Reality is consistent and non contradictory.
Because I can't find definitive proof of unicorns, that doesn't mean that unicorns don't exist. Rhinoceri exist. The universe is a big place; until I've examined at least a fair number of planets, I've no way of knowing whether horse-like animals with a bone growing out of their forehead exist or not. The pragmatic, *scientific* approach is to suspend judgment until one has sufficient evidence to know one way or another. You're assuming that because you don't have the evidence, the evidence doesn't exist.
What is the Higgs field?
Have you ever seen a quantum string?
There is nothing contradictory or inconsistent with a creator-made universe. Something caused the big bang. And by definition I would suggest that God, as creator, has had a very big effect on mass and/or energy.
---
Actually, yes it does. When determining what does and doesn't exist, you must assume that nothing exists except that which has proof positive of its existence.