The Tension of Faith

I am an atheist. I am a "confirmed atheist" because I became an atheist a bit before the traditional age of confirmation -- that is primarily an inside joke of mine.Basically, after I had been baptized around age 11 (prompted by a Billy Graham crusade -- please allow me a moment to hang my head in shame), a year later I decided that I really needed to get serious about this religion stuff, so I started reading the Bible. I erroneously entered into that evolution (Naval terminology) with a nave attitude of biblical literacy. I very quickly realized that I just simply could not believe the really weird stuff I was reading, so, I reasoned (undoubtedly erroneously for my particular denomination which I have never been able to determine) that since I couldn't believe what I was supposed to (in my ignorance of my own denomination's requirements) then it was best that I just leave. So while so many ex-Christian testimonials are so painful, my own was mostly neutral -- oh, I cannot believe this stuff, so I guess I should just leave, right?OK, so how far did I get through Genesis? Genesis 19:30-38 is when Lot's daughters got him drunk and then raped him (and were rewarded by God for it). I would think that my adolescent mind would have remembered that incestuous rape by the daughters.Since then, I have read the entire New Testament all the way through, twice.Both times, the Gospels talked mostly about the teachings of Jesus.Jesus had some good teachings.Post-Gospel, we suddenly had the religion of the Christ. That is when it went really weird.Weird is never good. For anybody.

Exactly what I realized when first encountering the ridiculous claims of the Radical Religious Right (RRR) immediately after they helped to get Reagan elected the first time. Immediately apparent was the right to follow whatever religion you wish, nor no religion at all, which in a theocracy would be the crime of apostasy, usually a capital offense. And then there is the right to reject a government which does not serve us and to form our own government through our own efforts for our own benefit as a people, which first rejects the Christian-based belief in the Divine Right of Kings and then promotes the very ideas which the RRR openly denounced as "secular humanism." The RRR's claims made absolutely no sense then and they still made no sense today.Later I learned about the Christian Reconstructionist (CR) movement which was actively advocating replacing the US Constitution (and all our civil rights) with an Old Testament theocracy. Although they went into decline in the 1990's, in the 1980's they were the RRR's political mentors even though they differed in theology (premillennialism v. postmillennialism) and the CRs had a multigenerational plan (hence their great interest in exploiting home-schooling) while the RRR wanted to do it overnight through the force of law. In 2008, that movement was officially declared dead, but its goals are still being sought by Dominionists (their detractors' name for modern theocrats like Ted Cruz and Mike Pence) -- I think they now call themselves something like Christian Nationalists (hint, the sound of the first four letters of "Nationalismus" became "Nazi" -- also, the official Christian Nationalist movement was founded in 1942 to promote an anti-semitic agenda).Around 1987, Christianity Today ran an article about Christian Reconstructionism and quoted several of its leaders and writers. A recurring theme was denouncing democracy and human rights as having been invented by Satan and so, of course, they must be the first to go.Another writer (Bell?) was quoted as explicitly advising that they must very strongly insist upon their own rights of religious liberty for the expressed purpose of depriving everybody else of their religious liberty. And we are now seeing that advice being put to active use as today's aspiring theocrats use their own "religious freedom" as justification for breaking the law and destroying everybody else's civil rights. QED

I very much doubt that you could, giving that officially designated Christian Reconstructionists were pretty much dying out in the 1990's. But their ideas and goals do still carry on and are advocated by many "true Christians". Whenever you see one of them advocating making the Bible the Law of the Land, making America a Christian Nation, making their form of Christianity either the official American religion or at the very least have it rank above all other religions (including most forms of Christianity) and dictate what the laws should be, advocate that only members of their form of Christianity should be allowed to hold public office or wield political power, then you are seeing one of them. They do live and you don't need special sunglasses to see them either.In fact, I am quite certain that you personally know at least such person. Extremely personally know that person. Of course not. Those are what Christians would do and historically have done when they have been in power.No, what we need to do is to keep you from grabbing the political power that you crave so much that, as we now witness every day, you will all line up to flatter and curry favor from the Anti-Christ in order to gain it.What we need to do is to keep you from perverting civil government for the sake of your religion.Volume 1 of a book researching the lies of historical revisionists, Liars for Jesus, ended with a false claim of Blackstone's book on English Common Law, kind of a "Common Law for Dummies", held much sway in the Colonies when in reality lawyers had little patience for it. A prominent lawyer of the time,
St. George Tucker, was quoted. Tucker was a Revolutionary War officer and a renowned lawyer, law professor at the College of William and Mary, and US District Judge for Virginia under President Madison. He was also an abolitionist who had worked out a plan for the freeing of the slaves.His quotes are yet another example that the idea of church-state separation was held by many, especially by those who gave that matter any thought at all. It should be noted Tucker had a low opinion of atheism, yet he considered civil government far safer in the hands of atheists than in the hands of theists. The ellipses are Rodda's or her source's.

quote:

---

...The pretext of religion, and the pretences of sanctity and humility, have been employed throughout the world, as the most direct means of gaining influence and power. Hence the numberless martyrdoms and massacres which have drenched the whole earth with blood, from the first moment that civil and religious institutions were blended together. To separate them by mounds which can never be overleaped, is the only means by which our duty to God, the peace of mankind, and the genuine fruits of charity and fraternal love, can be preserved or properly discharged. This prohibition, therefore, may be regarded as the most powerful cement of the federal government, or rather, the violation of it will prove the most powerful engine of separation. Those who prize the union of the states will never think of touching this article with unhallowed hands....

---

Yet again, the Wall of Separation albeit through a superficially different metaphor.

quote:

---

Civil establishments of formularies of faith and worship, are inconsistent with the rights of private judgement. They engender strife . . . they turn religion into a trade . . . they shore up error . . . they produce hypocrisy and prevarication . . . they lay an undue bias on the human mind in its inquiries, and obstruct the progress of truth . . . genuine religion is a concern that lies entirely between God and our own souls. It is incapable of receiving any aid from human laws. It is contaminated as soon as worldly motives and sanctions mix their influence with it. Statesmen should countenance it only by exhibiting, in their own example, a conscientious regard to it in those forms which are most agreeable to their own judgments, and by encouraging their fellow citizens in doing the same. They cannot, as public men, give it any other assistance. All, besides, that has been called a public leading in religion, has done it an essential injury, and produced some of the worst consequences.

---

In the next quote, from the preceding quotes I interpret his reference to "such a religion" as being a religion established and imposed by the state as opposed to "genuine religion" which is private and up to each person. Rodda notes here that Tucker is not condoning atheism, yet he argues that it is less dangerous to government and society than superstitions and religious fanaticism:

quote:

---

It has been long a subject of dispute, which is worse in it’s effects on society, such a religion or speculative atheism. For my own part, I could almost give the preference to the latter . . . Atheism is so repugnant to every principle of common sense, that it is not possible it should ever gain much ground, or become very prevalent. On the contrary, there is a particular proneness in the human mind to superstition, and nothing is more likely to become prevalent . . . Atheism leaves us to the full influence of most of our natural feelings and social principles; and these are so strong in their operation, that, in general, they are a sufficient guard to the order of society. But superstition counteracts these principles, by holding forth men to one another as objects of divine hatred; and by putting them on harrassing, silenceing, imprissoning and burning one another, in order to do God service . . . Atheism is a sanctuary for vice, by taking away the motives to virtue arising from the will of God, and the fear of future judgment. But superstition is more a sanctuary for vice, by teaching men ways of pleasing God, without moral virtue; and by leading them even to compound for wickedness, by ritual services, by bodily penances and mortifications; by adoring shrines, going pilgrimages, saying many prayers, receiving absolution from the priests, exterminating heretics, &c....13

---

As we can plainly see, opposition to aspiring theocrats trying to seize political power has been opposed since the founding of thie nation. And for very good reasons.So then the solution to the grave danger you pose to America would be to keep your damned dirty paws off of the Wall of Separation which protects the rights of the people (borrowing from Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance).BTW, I just learned that Chris Rodda has published Volume 2 and it is ready for free download at her site given above.Edited by dwise1, : "theocrats" --> "aspiring theocrats"

Even closer to home, there's the very basic right of a spouse to being with their loved one in the hospital, especially when that loved one is dying. And gay couples with children had always had to fear having their children taken away from them when travelling through states that did not recognize their marriage.It has been suggested that all marriages be made civil unions for sake of civil and legal status and that they can then also go to their own church for a religious marriage ceremony. As I understand it, that is how it is done in several countries.But what makes that kind of argument moot is that so many of our laws written at all levels of government, as well as in far more contracts, explicitly refer to marriage. For that reason and to avoid the legal nightmare that could ensue, gay marriage has to be marriage in order to ensure the conference of all legal and civil rights to the spouse. That is also the basis for cries of "racial discrimination against whites". They are losing their special privileges and cannot not endure being like everybody else (despite still not having lost the majority of their special privileges).Though there is also that odd "martyrdom fantasy" pathology that many Christians, seem afflicted with. I hope they find a cure for it soon.

OK, name that law! What law are you talking about which was written for that purpose? Please be very specific and demonstrate that it was indeed written for that specific purpose!I know of no such law. I'm certain that you cannot name any such law. Such laws do not exist!Now, if you are talking about people whose religious beliefs motivate them to violate the law, such as anti-discrimination laws, then that is an entirely different matter.I'm certain that you did not bother to read what I had quoted, so here again is what that Christian Reconstructionist writer was quoted in that pagan rag, Christianity Today, as having written (from memory):

quote:

---

Insist on your own rights to religious liberty so that we can deprive others of theirs.

---

Isn't that exactly what you are trying to do here? You mean Christian Sharia Law? I've been hearing about it since the Jesus Freaks in 1970 and it is still an abomination.Back in Message 1302 I pointed out to you that you have indeed known someone who espouses Christian Reconstructionist ideals, very up-close and very personally. In fact, you still know that very same person just as up-close and personal as ever before. You still haven't figured out who that is?

Please take a course in civics. Well, you are right that it's useless us to try to reason with people so incapable of reasoning.And what you believe and advocate has nothing to do with God's Actual Law. Instead, it's your own ideas and prejudices which you have labeled as "God's Law".In fact, that is one reason why a theocracy cannot fail to become a tyranny. "God's Law" is what the religious leaders and fervent followers say it is. The theocrat must interpret "God's Law" and whatever he says it is cannot be questioned, since doing so would be to question God which would usually be a capital crime. That is why any kind of Sharia Law, though especially Christian Sharia Law, is such an abomination. Again, perhaps not by that specific title, but still espousing all the same ideas and agenda. She had posted them here repeatedly and adamantly, but finally backed off enough to instead advocate creating her own country where she could impose her Sharia Law and nobody with differing beliefs could have any say at all.It is truly amazing how little self-awareness someone could have.Edited by dwise1, : "In fact, that is one reason why a theocracy cannot fail to become a tyranny."

Except for those "true Christians" who believe that it is "God's Law" that the races be kept separate and the "inferior races" be subjugated.Oh dear! Two different groups of "true Christians" who disagree on what "God's Law" is and demands. However can we resolve that problem?The Christian way would be for one group to gain enough political power so that they can either subjugate or annihilate the other. Fortunately for us, those "true Christians" do not have such political power in our country ... yet.There is no one single Christian view of "God's Law" and what it is exactly. Like beliefs of what the Bible is and says, it's all just each group projecting their own ideas and prejudices on it. You do not speak for all Christians, nor do they speak for you. Christians, especially the Protestant branches, are a highly fractured and splintered mess of conflicting ideas and proclamations. Even the most extremely fundamentalist sects disagree vehemently with each other and consider each other to be wrong -- do not even begin to think of calling any of them by the name of another of those sects (this from someone I know who is from one of those sects). My ex-wife is now physically incapable of procreation, so she should not be allowed to re-marry should she so choose? I myself would oppose it, but only out of pity for the poor groom.

Civics has everything to do with it. You expressed severe ignorance of how our government is meant to work. Learning civics would help relieve you of that ignorance. But as usual you refuse to learn. "Christian Reconstructionist" would be a title which I have repeatedly said would not apply, but rather it is the beliefs and ideas, as I have repeatedly said.Don't you remember what you have posted? I do and I am quite certain that many others here do as well. Yes, you did finally back off somewhat, but you were out there advocating for theocracy. And I am not about to waste the time slogging through your compost heap of postings only for you to deny it anyway. You are too far beyond redemption.

Nor do you! Though that does not prevent you from pontificating. Except that we keep seeing those differences playing out all the time and throughout history. Fortunately for now none of your sects has the political power to act on those differences. Yes, it is absurd, but that is the logical conclusion to your premise that marriage is only for procreation. That is the entire idea, to show you how absurd your premise is.There is so much more to marriage than mere procreation. What a pity that "true Christians" adhering to your absurd premise can never know that. Indeed, why are you?

I agree that that should an acceptable compromise especially considering the Gorgian Knot that all your (pl) panties are twisted up into just because the word "marriage" is being used.The problem is the wording of the vast body of laws, contracts, official policies, rules and regulations and bylaws, etc, on every single level of public existence, all of which explicitly reference "marriage". The problem with the practice of law is that everything is based on the actual wording of the law, etc, in question. When you file a lawsuit to correct an egregious wrong, you need to find a specific law or laws that support your position and then you need to prepare your arguments based on the wording of that/those law(s). Many times, such as in the BSA religious discrimination cases, the wording you need to use can end up appearing almost farcical to non-lawyers observing the proceedings, but that does not change the fact that in legal arguments it is the precise wording of the law in question that is of the utmost importance.So when a gay couple who are not allowed to marry encounters a situation in which a law, contract, official policies, rule or regulation or bylaw, etc, applies (which happens just about every day for everybody) and that law, contract, official policies, rule or regulation or bylaw, etc, explicitly references marriage, then that couple will be denied. Doesn't matter that they have a legally recognized civil partnership or whatever your "some kind of legal contract" may be, the rule says "married", they are not "married", so denied.So what's the solution? I'm a guy and we're faced with a problem. However much you want to whine about how that problem makes you feel, I want to solve that problem. That's what guys do, seek solutions to problems. So how do we solve this problem?Obviously, you could go through each and every law, contract, official policy, rule or regulation or bylaw, etc, and rewrite each and every one of them to also include whatever legal equivalents you come up with, including explicit wording that will also cover all possible future legal equivalents that someone may think of. Is that at all feasible? Not even remotely.OK, so let's pass one law that establishes that legal status and that makes that status equivalent to marriage in all other laws, contracts, official policies both public and private, rules and regulations and bylaws, etc. That should solve the problem, right? Well, we all know that that law will get challenged, especially by hard-nosed "true Christians" who have their panties all twisted up into Gorgian knots. Tie up the courts in unnecessary lawsuits causing misery for everybody except for the lawyers raking in the dough.No, that won't work either.OK, so why not just establish a legal definition of "marriage" which also applies to gay couples such that they can have the status of "married". It's a legal definition, not a religious one, so it would have no impact on anyone's dubious religious sensitivities -- a single word can have many different meanings depending on the context; consider the many meanings of the word "round" when taken in its many contexts.That's why I would advocate a two-ceremony system such as exists in several other countries. First you go to the government office where you got your marriage license (you had to go there first anyway) and you have a small civil ceremony which makes the union legally binding. Then you go have the religious ceremony of your choice, should you so choose. Some churches won't have you? Fine, there are others that will. That's how it's always been. Some churches don't want to recognize a marriage performed in another church (or between undesirables such as divorcs, someone from a different religion, someone of a different skin color or a different nationality) then let them stew in it just as they have done for centuries; nothing new there. All that really matters in practical terms is the legality of the civil ceremony.If somebody's marital status has nothing to do with your church, then you have no say in the matter. Sure, you can bitch and moan about it, but you have no more right nor authority to block their marital status than a Hasidic Jew has to keep a gentile from eating a cheeseburger, even if it is topped with bacon. So they're trying to destroy marriage by promoting marriage? Do you also believe that it was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it? That kind of illogic should have died out with Nam. Except for the fact that marriage does benefit society in so many ways, including but not exclusive to the creation of stable communities consisting of stable households with stable families that take care of themselves and of others. Your efforts to break up those families and households would only serve to destabilize the communities which also now have to take care of all those former family members who, thanks to your zealous efforts, now have nobody to take care of them.It is NOT necessary to destroy the community in order to save it!

A foster family is a very poor substitute for a real family. Despite the problem of some being in for the "raise for pay" aspect, I'm sure that many foster parents are caring. But what happens when that kid ages out of the system as soon as he turns 18? How many foster families continue to support that kid as he finishes schooling and starts his career? Or goes to college? Very few. Extremely few, I would think.As soon as a kid in the foster system hits 18, he's out on the street. If he turns 18 while still in high school, I don't know whether he's allowed to stay in the system until he graduates. If he wants to go to college, then he also has to be working more than full time to support himself, so college is pretty much not an option. About the only ones who benefit from the situation are the military recruiters, but even they have to be more selective about whom they sign in.So you took kids in a supportive family and threw them into a foster system that leaves them with no future as an adult. Way to go, Faith!

Yet again, I would like to thank Faith for her presentation of what her CHRISTIANITY is. And for why it should be shunned by every single thinking and believing and moral person in existence.Thank you, Faith, for your service to all of humanity.