I was commenting on Cheryl's comment in the "oasis" blog post below, and I decided to write some more about one of the points.
No, not about cars. Although I could. Maybe later.
The phrase "separation between church and state" is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, in reference to the first amendment of the Constitution. This amendment is often paraphrased as "freedom of religion". This means that the government should not draft any legislature that prohibits the recognition of a national religion, the government's preference of one religion over another or irreligion (a word, by the way, I needed to look up to make sure it was a word). I liked "non-religion" better, though. Less weird looking. But I digress.
The point being that the United States Government should not pick a religion over one or the other. Doesn't mean that a politician should be religious or practice a preferable religion. Basically, they can believe what they want as long as they have their constituency's values well represented. And the Government will not get involved with their faith. But the masses will hold this over the heads of electable candidates.
God is a very, very important criteria for a potential leader. I often wonder if an atheist or deist or some other "ist" was running for office...would they be electable?
I see Christian fundamentalists who scoff at having evolved from primates and that the literal word of the Bible is the true science in the news all the time. I read one article recently that stated that the Creationist Museum was drawing record numbers. They failed to mention that a lot of the people going there were expecting what I'd expect...a really funny place to be.
Listen, my beliefs are my own, but I would hope that if there is a God in Heaven, that he would hope that His most beloved creation, human beings, would be curious about their world and themselves and discover the origins of all. After all, God put a tremendous amount of thought in designing the laws of physics, biochemistry, macro and microbiology...it would be a shame to let that beauty go unrecognized due to blind adherence to the literal translation of a parabolic doctrine.
Perhaps that makes me unelectable. Oh well, there's always hope that people will evolve.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I wonder what kind of car God drives... probably something like the Mach 5 from Speed Racer..
Joe, humans will always use religion as a way to feel superior to others, and/or a free ticket into whatever glorious afterlife they believe in.
Many religions fear science as an enemy, but I agree with you Joe -- what All Powerful Creator would fault their creations for wanting to learn as much about their life as possible? Logic would dictate the Creator would be happy that person is actually using their God given brain, which was created with the capacity to understand higher concepts! If man questioned nothing and left it all up to faith we'd still be in the dark ages. (of course science needs to adhere to a code of ethics-- oops the Nazi's forgot about that-- but that's a whole other argument)
I was raised Catholic, and always pushed back on much of the doctrine that didn't make sense to me. (but I had the benefit of being taught by nuns/brothers who taught that the Bible was framed in way so the people of the time could understand it's themes, not a 100% accurate historical book)
I always related to the story of St. Thomas -- in the account where Jesus rose from the dead, Thomas wouldn't believe it was Jesus until he stuck his fingers through the crucifixion holes in his wrists and the sword cut in Jesus' side. I always thought that was badass, and that's how I've always felt -- empirical evidence goes a long way. Faith has it's place, but it shouldn't be used as a crutch to apply to everything we don't understand.
People with strong religious faith chalk everything up to God....except for evolution! Why can't God be responsible for that too? Cause it doesn't match the Bible? St. Thomas, where are you???
Anyway Joe, Christian fundamentalists got their foothold in this country early on, so they will be around for a while longer. My consolation is that it was them as opposed to Muslim fundamentalists...that would be like going from Soccer mom on the side of the field to beheaded mom in the middle of the soccer field...
I would like to think that God would drive a Hummer. If anyone could afford the gas price, it would be him.
Joe, that is a remarkable treatise...nicely written.
Wish I wrote it.
The First Amendment to the Constitution actually states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Now, how does displaying a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn establish a state religion? If it does somehow establish a state religion, how does declaring Christmas a national holiday not establish a state religion?
As for evolution: it is still a theory. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That does not mean that I don't believe in evolution; I have done very little research into the matter. I do know that Pope John Paul II stated: "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points." Those indisputable points have to do with the creation of the soul. Pope John Paul II basically said that Truth cannot contradict Truth, and that science needs to stick to the realm of the material, inferring nothing about the spiritual.
I had a friend who was a Christian fundamentalist (she died of breast cancer a few years ago), who believed that God actually held the hand of Moses as he wrote the Pentateuch. She also (like most, if not all, fundamentalists) believed that the earth was about only 6,000 years old.
I disagree with this view completely. A literary analysis of the Bible points towards a number of writers (four or five for the Pentateuch alone) and a number of literary styles: history, fiction, poetry. Genesis even contains two different creation stories, one in which man is created before the animals and one in which he is created last. That does not, however, force me to believe that humans were descended from apes.
The biggest problem I have with evolution is the insistence by the powers-that-be that evolution is a fact. There are still questions and gaps in the evidence and alternate explanations that evolutionists are unwilling to acknowledge or discuss. The most pernicious aspect of the evolution "debate" is how insidiously pro-evolution scientists work to squelch the opinions of their rivals.
Have you ever heard of Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled"? Probably not. It is a documentary about the silencing of scientists who question evolution. You can learn more about the movie at http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php. In his introduction, Stein states: "Such a change in our government’s official policy represents a deeply troubling shift in our cultural identity and a radical departure from the very principles upon which our country was built. America is the first Democracy that was founded on the distinctive worldview that 'a Creator' conferred 'inalienable rights' on human beings, rather than the State, or another institution, such as 'Big Science.'
So…how was it decided that the teaching of such a profoundly different worldview should become the official position of the United States of America’s public institutions?"
Of course, even more important than the question of what the government tells schools to teach is the question of why government is involved in education at all. How is telling educators what they must teach young, impressionable children all that different from having state controlled televisions stations, as is the case in socialist China?
Joe O, to address some of your specific points: I disagree with the statement that "humans will always use religion as a way to feel superior to others..." If there is not an innate longing for God (or a higher power), why have so many societies throughout history worshiped something larger than themselves? If there is not an innate longing for God, why do young children who have never been exposed to religion in any form ask about God?
I'll end with one more quote from Pope John Paul II. "Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn't misuse it."
Hey Cheryl,
I agree with you on the theory of evolution being just that-- a theory that has some evidence but also some gaps (hence the "missing link"). I've always thought they should teach both theories in schools -- I know lots of public schools that have "World Appreciation" days, where the kids learn about cultures around the world and their religions. So why can't Creationism enter into a science discussion? It's not the state would be promoting a specific religion, many religions believe in Creationism, they would just be teaching another theory -- one that can't be 100% disproved by science. But hey, I'm kooky that way.
As for my statement "Humans will always use religion...blah blah blah" I didn't mean that to be a blanket statement -- I do believe man has shown an innate longing to understand/connect with a Higher Power. I just meant we all know people who misuse religion to bolster their own self worth.
Pope John Paul II also said "Stupidity is also a gift from the Devil, so one mustn't open it."
(Ok, I made that one up myself, but it still sounds cool...)
Most of my posts are kind of stream of consciousness rants (since that's all I have time for) and not meant to be an end all be all statement on a particular issue -- more of a shoot from the hip to stimulate discussion. Looks like Joe got us all going with this one!
Thanks Cheryl! The twins are a true joy.
[The following references the comments made on the other blog as well as this one.]
With regards to Mr. Jefferson, he actually coined that phrase in a letter to the Danbury Baptists:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Again, the point being that there should be no national religion...like the Church of England. The Separatists from the Church of England made up the first colonies of these United States, and therefore wanted no Government or Sovereign interference with their religious practices.
Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable that the words "God" and "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence" would be present. For the belief in God and the influence God has on society was not only prevalent in those days, but non-belief was practically unheard of.
As was my original point, although there is (supposed) to be no intermingling between religion and government, the religion a candidate belongs to (or non-religion) matters to whether a presidential candidate is electable.
Because this country was founded by Christians, the national holiday of Christmas was established. To be fair, this should not be so. You're right. This is in direct opposition as to what the founding fathers devised.
Sadly, this holiday is now not so much about the celebration of the birth of Christ, but retail sales. This holiday has gone way beyond religion...it's gone capitalistic, which most people listen to more than the word of God.
There is an innate longing for God, as it is derived from the human need to understand the world. The concept of God was a way to explain the unexplainable. Monotheism itself is only a few thousand years old.
Pantheism had existed for much longer than that. And the multiple god concept came from ways to describe (mostly) natural events. That was followed by the Greek (and eventually Roman) Pantheism which created gods based on human emotions and activities (gods of love, war, etc).
What I guess I'm saying is that even the concept of God has evolved as the human race has evolved. Evolution did not stop with humans devolping opposable thumbs...at least I hope it didn't. But whereas the physical evolution of a species can take millions of years, the evolution of our minds takes much less.
I have, by the way, seen the movie "Expelled" (surprisingly, Netflix has it). And while it lacks the sublety of a Michael Bay movie, I was embarrassed for Ben Stein for being involved with this film.
The movie itself was pandering to it's viewer; no intelligent discussion was given, and Stein linked the Theory of Evolution to Eugenics and Nazism. Did you notice the Intelligent Design people were all clean cut kind Americans and the evolutionists were like foreign oil bureacrats? Sorry, but this movie was just embarrassing.
I wonder what Sarah Palin is wearing right now...
(comments Joe, misusing his gift of Stupidity from God...)
Gee, aren't you guys glad that Bully's website pointed me to your blog? I apologize if I come off as obnoxious. I really enjoy debates on these sorts of topics.
By the way, I included the quote about stupidity simply because I found it amusing that the pope would address the topic.
Joe O., my comments to you are in reference to your last comment. You wondering about Sarah Palin's attire reminds me of her husband. Seeing more of him is almost enough reason in and of itself to vote for McCain.
Comments about Palin started all of this, didn't they? I must say that I'm amazed at people's reactions to her. Those who are opposed to her seem so ingenuine. I really can't help but believe that the exact same person would be lauded as the greatest thing on the political scene if she were a Democrat and were running with Obama.
People seem to have a difficult time giving coherent reasons for opposing her. And the whole, "she's one heartbeat away from being president is such hyperbole." Obama is one lever pull away from being president, and that is much more frightening.
You may have noticed that some of my comments touch on socialism. What is Obama promising but socialism? Nationalized healthcare is socialism. Redistributing wealth (taxing the rich and giving to the poor) is socialism.
McCain (who is running for president on the Republican ticket, not Palin -- people seem to have forgotten that) is certainly no prize, but he stands in the way of Obama and his allies' social engineering policies.
Back to Palin, though. Sure, she has no experience in Washington, but isn't that a good thing? You yourselves have been complaining about the banking bailout (Hmmm, the government got involved in the affairs of a free market economy. What does that smack of? Oh I know, socialism.), but who made it a reality? The politicians in Washington. From a quick view and count (with interruptions by a number of children), it looks like 40 of our 100 senators and about 184 of our 435 representatives took office after the year 2000. In other words, those responsible for the banking bailout bullshit have been in office an awfully long time, and people love to complain about them. Sarah Palin is not one of them. Shouldn't people see that as a positive?
Anyway, Joe D, I agree with many of the points in your last comment. Here's a question for you, though: monotheism may be a relatively recent phenomenon, but isn't that because God didn't reveal Himself to the Hebrews until relatively recently?
Oh, and back to your original point: perhaps a candidate's religious beliefs matter to the American public because most members of the American public (contrary to the way they're portrayed by the mainstream, liberal media) consider themselves members of the Judeo-Christian faith.
INDIA IS all about cultural tolerance. It has survived and prospered, where other more powerful countries have disappeared and disintegrated. The greatness of this country is that it allows many different religions to co-exist. It’s a great religious confluence, where various religions co-habit, just like the many rivers flowing in this country that lose their individual identity and merge into one.
-----------------------
jones
Internet Marketing
I guess what upsets me the most is this country was founded on Christian beliefs, so tell me why I can't just say Merry Christmas?
What the hell does Happy Holiday's mean anyways? Let's think about this for a moment shall we? You're saying "Happy Holidays", so you're implying that there is a Holiday that you would like to celebrate then? Hmm so if there is a Holiday, and you are wishing someone a Happy one...Please someone tell me why we aren't supposed to say that Holiday's name out loud?
I cannot tell you how absolute frustrating that is. I sent out Christmas cards last year that had an Embossed star, and said "Near and Far Follow his star". My boss brought me into her office and said "You should be more careful with what you send out to people, you don't want to offend someone." For those of you who know me I am sure you can appreciate the blank and shocked expression that appeared on my face. I'm sorry boss lady, but what you've said right there is offensive to me. I never shoved my religion into anyone's face, I never forced anyone to accept my card, I gave it because I wanted everyone I knew in the office to have a Merry Christmas, if someone had given me a Happy Chanukah card I would have loved it! Especially if it was something handmade like mine was.
::takes a breath:: sorry what were we talking about?
As a mainstream liberal radical socialist chocolate-frosted cream-centered breakfast-loving flag-flying dinosaurcentric pillsbury doughboy-worshipper, I find myself shocked and chagrined concerning a controversial point Cheryl made in her original comment. To wit: Leave us not look so askance at that cute little red Hyundai, my friend. Is it my dream sexy car? Nay. Yet, it's cute and sounds like a goodly ride, and I salute carthusiasms and beliefs of all manners. So: Thanks for sharin' that one, Kathy! And, rock on with your German (bahn bahn autobahn) models, Cheryl! To each her own.
As a sidenote, it would be WAY cool if the car could actually BE a toaster, too. Ever since the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile of my youth, I've dreamed of a car that would not merely convey me but cook for me. Ah...THAT'S SEXY.
Have a great weekend, all.
(PSST! If you have oil heat, today is a very good day to tank up. The price per gallon is $2.40 in the New England state I live in. I'm not trying to initiate a larger discussion about peak oil and alternative energy sources--just giving a heads up.)
MERRY CHRISTMAS, SARAH! :-)
Sparkle Plenty,
Thanks for the heads-up on the oil price. I'll check out what it's at here in Maine.
Anglein,
You talk about cultural tolerance. Tolerance is THE new American virtue. The greatest crime an American can now commit seems to be intolerance. The problem with tolerance, though, is how it's perceived (and in some cases, shoved down your throat). For me, tolerance means that I treat all people with the respect their innate human dignity demands, whether that's the Buddhist father of my son's friend, the snobby former owners of my house, or one of the gay men who live next door. As I often tell my children, "God tells us that we have to love our neighbor, but He never says we have to like them. In other words, treat them how you'd like to be treated, no matter how they treat you."
For many Americans, though, tolerance means that I must have no problem with elementary school students being taught that homosexuality is perfectly normal, and, "hey, give it a try yourselves when you get to be a teenager (don't forget your condom, though)." It means that I must not get offended by jokes that put down Catholics (that last religious group it's socially acceptable to trash), while not being so heartless and cruel that I wish somebody a Merry Christmas.
Can I just say that this is EXACTLY why I started this blog? I LOVE having discussions like this.
It's a lot better than ragging on George Bush...!
chocolate-frosted cream-centered breakfast-loving flag-flying dinosaurcentric pillsbury doughboy-worshipper
I heart Sparkle.
MERRY CHRISTMAS SPARKLE!
Oh, and Cheryl, I'm glad you're here. It's Bully who's the problem. ;-)
So, back to monotheism. Two ways to look at it: one, that God revealed Himself to the Israelites; two, human understanding of abstract conceptions allowed for the possibility of a single omnipotent God. Either way, I'm fine with it.
Whether the idea came from wanting to separate themselves from the Egyptians by a fundamental belief system previously unthought of or if it was divine communication...it allowed the expansion of the human understanding.
Now, while I may have some major issues with the politics of religion, I am fully aware of it's necessity in society. Developing a social structure with proper mores and behavior is an extremely tricky idea. Most religions do a good job of teaching it's members to try to be nice to each other for a change. The 10 Commandments are a terrific guideline for living together as fellow humans.
I was born and raised Catholic. I can go on for days picking it apart, hopefully raising questions and helping people to think. Even if they think I'm an idiot (I'm used to that anyway).
That being said, if I hear people who are not Catholic picking on the church, I will defend it vehemently. Partly because I like to stick up for the underdog in most situations. Mostly because only a member of a family has the right to complain about it's fellow members.
And, finally, Cheryl & Sarah: I ALWAYS say "Merry Christmas" if I can help it. If I know someone's Jewish, I will wish them a happy Hannukah (this is particularly effective in July...you get the greatest responses).
If someone gets offended, whoop de doo. Why someone would be offended when you're wishing them well is beyond me. If someone wished my a happy Kwanza, I would thank them. I mean, is that so difficult?
One last question to you all, excerpted from the original post:
Do you think if an atheist or deist or some other "ist" was running for office...would they be electable?
Mulderjoe,
Things are getting a bit crowded here. Will you please write up your question as a new post?
Thanks.
We might also discuss how the following word applies to our society.
an·o·mie or an·o·my (n-m)
n.
1. Social instability caused by erosion of standards and values.
2. Alienation and purposelessness experienced by a person or a class as a result of a lack of standards, values, or ideals: "We must now brace ourselves for disquisitions on peer pressure, adolescent anomie and rage" Charles Krauthammer.
From the Free Dictionary by Farlex
"Because this country was founded by Christians, the national holiday of Christmas was established. To be fair, this should not be so. You're right. This is in direct opposition as to what the founding fathers devised."
I think we've really lost perspective on the whole "Separation of Church and State" concept. This new country was founded because the Government of England was trying to step in and meddle into the affairs of the Church...not the other way around. The whole point of that being written is to keep the government out of dictating laws in what the church does. The intent was not to keep God out of schools, prayer out of schools, or Christianity out of the government. Because they all were a bunch of "Christ followers" already, the concept of God not being a part of their government would have been rediculous. The pendelum has truly swung in the opposite direction of keeping God out of government which was not the original intent.
Merry Christmas, Happy Channaka, and Happy Kwanza.
Post a Comment