War on Our Religion

Share

I have been watching the political developments of the last few weeks with a slightly different take than some others. Last night at dinner, a close friend argued in favor of the contraception mandate because "Catholics don't have to pay out because practicing Catholics won't use contraceptives". How many real Catholics would we find? That's like saying people who have self control won't drink if the alcohol is free and provided by their church. He thinks we'd find lots of true adherants. I don't see the logic.

Yesterday, I found three images on the internet I wish to share in the context of war on our religion. I believe that the Monarchists in politics, mostly in the Democrat party but also in all the others, are actively engaged in a war against freedom of religion. Others have used the phrase, "Freedom from religion", but I don't think that's right either. I think Monarchists want to force us to believe as they do for the reasons that they do, and that's the problem.

First up, I found and responded to this inaccurate image of the Jefferson nickle.

The people who posted this are falling for an old lie. This is not a new trick. During the election of 1800, supporters of John Adams ran the inaccurate slogan of "God and Adams or Jefferson and no God". Anyone who knows anything about Jefferson knows that although he was not an adherent of any particular Faith he was still a man of great faith. He did after all write the Declaration of Independence. This is just another in a long series of inaccurate internet posts propagated by people who do not do their own research trying to validate their preconceived notions. Most people are not interested in truth; they secretly hope the truth will validate what they already happen to believe. Just because it's on the internet and popular doesn't make it true; in fact, usually the more popular it is, the less useful or trans-formative it will prove in your life. Do your own homework. That's always good advice.

However, it's spreading like wildfire across the internet as people comment on it. I reject the premise that my faith and my Faith are somehow the problem.  Some of the propagators of these inaccurate notions are naive, but some of them take it as validation of what they believe, very much like the next image.

This one is full of an ad populum designed to make them feel akin to famous historical figures. Lots of people like to link themselves to famous people as if it validates them without considering the links to people who are famous with whom I might not want to be associated. However, many of these figures are fallaciously associated with atheism. Franklin, as a Freemason, had to believe in a supreme being. Jefferson was a Deist. Lincoln spoke and wrote often of God. Einstein believed in a controlling force at least. Spinoza was more of an old world polytheist who believed God made the world and then let it spin without interfering. Darwin studied to enter the clergy before his trip aboard the Beagle. At any rate, the word agnostic (meaning opposed to specific Faith) is more appropriate than aetheist (meaning opposed to faith in general), and so the argument is invalid.

Finally we come to this one. Now at first, I really wanted to like this, but then I looked for images on "Typical Conservatives" and "Typical Republicans" so I could see if I found them offensive. I am not convinced there is anything like a typical liberal, but we do see many of these in Liberals. What I wish to focus on is two specific squares.

Tolerant: except of Christianity

Diverse: unless it's straight, white people

Over the last few weeks, we've heard a load of talk about contraceptives and abortion. First, the Komen foundation tried to split from Planned Parenthood (which is another misnomer). Now, Obama wants to force insurers to provide for abortions and contraceptives. I personally happen to have need of neither of those. I might never need them, and I reject the notion that I should bankroll those who do through open rebellion against my morality. Were I to openly rebel against theirs, they would have be hung, drawn, and quartered, albeit largely metaphorically.  Monday, I tweeted that "The contraceptive debate finally explains Obamacare: Monarchists want to fornicate at will without having to be responsible for children." At the grand opening of the Mob Museum Tuesday (Valentine's Day), former Vegas Mayor Goodman allegedly made comments that cheapen marriage by comparing a wedding ceremony to a mob induction, that once you say 'i do' you never get out. Finally, Wednesday I read an article about how fornication goes high tech. This is one of the things that's wrong with the world- sex as a form of recreation, which is expressly repugnant in the eyes of nature and of "Nature's God" (to quote Jefferson ;)). Humans are the only animals who think this is 'fun'.  The media and cultural icons have led us to believe that sex is fun, but sex isn't really that much fun. Our bodies like it for two reasons. First, our bodies desire to procreate and thereby guarantee the perpetuity of our genes to future generations as proof of their virility. Secondly, our bodies have learned to like sex because there's a pleasure receptor in our brain that is activated during sexual climax that has also been activated at exciting hockey games, during meteor showers, and when you eat potato chips, and our bodies are addicted to it.

These political moves are offensives in the war on morality and religion. I do not accept the premise that they're trying to make a better world for everyone.  What they're actually doing is meddling.  They're in our homes and in our heads without the right because they subscribe to the notion that although you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink that they can lead men to paradise by forcing him to be better.  Religion should be a matter of choice- that we choose to be choice.  In framing the Constitution, Madison wrote that it is for a moral and religious people, something that Monarchists cannot stand. In the marriage debate, some argue for Adam + Steve, but somehow polygamy, polyandry, and filiandry (marriage of close relatives) offend their sensibilities. So much for 'equality'. What they really mean is that they want what they want to be legal, our sensibilities be damned. So much for 'tolerance'. I find it ironic that they do not want the church involved in government but think nothing at all of government dictating terms to the church. When it comes to men of faith, my concern is always the same- even if they mean to rule well, they mean to rule. That is inconsistent with real faith, which makes men agents unto themselves as well as accountable for what they do.

These people want to do whatever they like but cry foul if you do in kind. I responded to a fellow's blog yesterday who complained that religous people always get what they want. When pressed for details, he cited the insertion of "In God We Trust" into the pledge. I followed up with "so, your idea of religious people getting everything they like is when they get something with which you happen to take exception? What is it called then when you get something to which I take exception?" That has gone thus far unanswered. They want standards to be ephemeral, to be integrated constantly. The only constant they accept is change, change to whatever whimsical notion they like at the time. That's not an adult attitude; that's the attitude of a teenager. If they could, they would pass laws that make it allowable to do whatever they like, but if you did that they would call it oppression. Human beings are not logical, and Spock was right to show us.

The radicals of both sides want to impose their morality on everyone else. They wage war against what we believe, and it's time for people to unite, whatever their belief, so that we can believe as we like and live as we ought. Last weekend, I started studying the foundations of the Confederacy. Many among the fans of this movement cite the right to live as they please according to the dictates of conscience. I echo the sentiments of Stonewall Jackson, that it's duplicitous to cry for freedom while you oppress an entire race, religion, nationality, or gender, that it's duplicitous to establish freedom by declaring that those who hold power ought to be denied their rights so you can have yours. Such a notion changes one man's idea of oppression for another's, and the war will go on and on while they scapegoat men of faith for holding fast to a standard.