The Least of Us

With the First Amendment, the Framers of the Constitution bridled Congress from making legislation which gives preferential treatment to any religious establishment; Likewise, Congress shall make no law which prohibits the free exercise of a religious faith or establishment-- for free exercise of one faith demands on some level the rejection of another.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

From the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

For if Congress introduces legislation that gives any religious establishment power over the people, then Congress by default places prohibitions upon any other group which differs from the religious establishment in question.

What better barometer do we have for measuring the true level of our freedom as a nation than to investigate how minority groups are treated? Often the minority is the least popular, least powerful group whose rights are rarely realized to the same, full extent as the majority.

On that premise, I submit the idea that the treatment of the agnostic and the atheist in the United States is a gauge of our true state of liberty concerning matters of religious freedom. If the non-religious don't have freedom from religion in the same way that believers may embrace their faith, then I dare say only the members of the most popular religions truly have the right to enjoy their own religious beliefs to the fullest.

Whenever society decides that liberty and justice is not for all, the treatment that befalls the least of us will eventually become everyone's lot in the end.

Get Outta My Pants!

Isn't the notion odd that someone would dare forbid you the use of contraception?

The Catholic Church is claiming that President Obama's health care plan will force them to purchase and provide insurance that will offer medical features (contraception) which are against their faith. In so doing, this violates their rights to practice their faith.

I thought about this a bit. Maybe the Catholics have a good point. If their leaders think contraception is evil, they shouldn't be forced to purchase it or use it at their own free will.

But for all the ideals that their leadership attempts to unjustly impose, I think they cancel out their own point.

I noticed an organization named Amac who supports the Catholic Church's official stand against ObamaCare. They sent out a message to their members encouraging them to purchase arm bands and where them on certain days in order to vocalize their support of the Church. In that message, they quote and emphasize a potion of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

They really hone in on "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"-- which is extremely important, I must admit.

But, they seem to overlook the clause that balances out that statement-- which is also extremely important-- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Nope. No religious faith gets any special favors, attention, or exemptions by Congress when laws are made. The laws made shouldn't care what any establishment of religion thinks about them provided the free exercise of faith remain.

But don't get carried away. If the tenants of your faith include world domination, well . . . I don't think the Bill of Rights will cover that one . . .

That's why faith is a private thing . . . just like the inside of my pants.

No Choice

Prayer is neither peaceful nor sacred when someone is forced to participate in it.

Freedom of Religion

Some people have still yet to realize that in order to have freedom of religion, there must be freedom from it as well. These are two sides of the same coin.

For, how can you exclusively worship a god without excluding other gods in the process?

I submit that one cannot avoid this; for in excerising your own freedom of religion, you are inevitably excercising your freedom from someone else's faith.

So then . . . stop feeling entitled and accept that everyone has this right-- and not just you.

Recent Reflections Concerning Religion

I have finally found a quite, rare moment to write . . .

Lately, I noticed that I was developing hostility towards religion. I didn't notice this within myself until I felt extremely annoyed at the notion that religion and myth are such powerful forces in so many lives. Ironically, I had come to admire the works of Joseph Campbell as my life's journey brought me to a posture of atheism. Campbell eloquently shows how the influence of myth is powerfully ingrained in the human psyche. Religious metaphor moves and inspires people-- without question. And at first, this was an intriguing and beautiful discovery to me despite my growing sense of non-belief. But in these recent weeks, his ideas were starting to bother me more and more.

I especially noticed this when a dear friend of mine recommend that I read a book entitled The End of Education. This book seemed to really rub my nose in "it" by constantly expressing that religion is a fixture in most of humanity. At this stage of the evolutionary cycle, human kind cannot, as a whole, expect to suddenly detach from religion any time soon. As a result, education's engine may run best when wrapped up in a mythological or religious-like narrative. The author of this book was not advocating religion itself, or any specific religion. Just the idea that narrative in a mythological style may be the best seeds for planting the important lessons of life.

And he quoted Joseph Campbell on top of everything else as he made his case!

And that's when I came to realize something . . .

It's OK if religion hangs around for a while.

I've come to realize that nothing is wrong with being inspired by a myth or a religious faith. Nothing is wrong with drawing inspiration from a narrative. Our minds almost seem wired for this. Yes, our minds seem to have an ingrown place that is wired for mythological narrative, faith talk, and religion. If that be true, who am I to be angry about this?

I have also come to realize for myself that while I can personally do without religion, others cannot or will not. It is not my place to judge people whose lives are driven by faith.

Also, I cannot prove that god does not exist. And while the burden of proof rest upon the claimant, I cannot be totally certain that the claimant will never find evidence for their deity's existence.

That doesn't mean that I've become a theist again. Not at all. That only means that I realize that I have no right to push someone into thinking that there is no god.

Just as a theist has no right trying to push god upon me.

I thought about what I wanted to see happen in society as an atheist or agnostic. What did I really want to see change in society around me?

Here's all the change that I ask for concerning the clash between the religious and the non-religious. I wish that more people would take time to:

1. Understand that I want religious people to have the freedom to worship their deity. This is their right as human beings.

2. Understand that I want to exercise the right to interpret religion just as freely as other religious people already get to do. So, whatever deity I have or do not have in my life is my business and my personal right. I should not be treated differently because of this.

3. Understand that I do not deserve to be threatened with eternal torture of the hereafter or with imminent death in the here and now simply because I have a difference of opinion. Remember: Someone else has a deity that breaths threats of eternal punishment for you in their prediction of the afterlife, too. So, are you going to drop your faith and follow theirs now? No? Please, then, do not expect this of me.

4. Understand that I do not want to turn the world into an atheistic society that has flushed away all religion. I want religious people to maintain their freedom to worship. I would simply ask that more religious people become tolerant of non-religious people.

5. Understand that if you have to always speak for your deity, punish for your deity, and badger others for your deity, then perhaps your deity is mute and impotent: that's (after all) the mark of a lifeless, idol god. I'm not saying . . . but, I'm just saying. Give your deity a chance to take care of him or herself before you terrorize and threaten others on your deity's behalf.

6. Understand that I realize that I could be completely wrong about the existence of God. I revisit that idea frequently, but I'm very comfortable where I am right now in my non-belief.

7. Understand that you could be completely wrong about (at the very least) your faith. Be open and tolerant therefore, of those with whom you disagree.

8. Understand that freedom is enjoyed best when everyone can enjoy it. Everyone cannot enjoy our nation if any specific religion is oppressed by Government or controlled by Government. The same potential for tyranny holds true if any specific religion oppresses our society or rises up to control and assimilate our Government.

After mulling over these reflections for a few days, I felt much better. My hostility towards religion dissipated. Just as Thomas Jefferson said, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". While this is true, the problem comes when your neighbor cannot stand the fact that you disagree and (as a result) wants to actively break your legs because you are different.

So, in that vein: I do not hate god or religion-- rather, I hate the notion that people feel they ever have a right to force an ideal upon me with which I disagree. And when speaking in those terms, it doesn't matter if the ideal is a religious one or not.

Baby Steps

In my previous post, I discussed my recent feelings about whether I should remain in the closet or not about my atheism.

A day needs to come where keeping my dirty little secret no longer feels necessary.

Again, I'm not doing anything radical at the moment. But here's my first baby step towards coming out to the real world.

See . . . I never dropped my membership from the denominations with which I am still affiliated. I grew up being part of the Missionary Baptist Church but converted to Apostolic Pentecostalism at 18 years old. I never formally cut ties with the Baptist church when I moved. My last years as a Christian were spent being part of the Church of God based in Cleveland, TN. But, I never formally cut ties with the Apostolic Faith Church, either.

So, for my first baby step, I wrote a letter to the Church of God state office in my area and formally withdrew my membership. Below is a copy of the letter I wrote. I have edited out any personal information because at this time, I am not yet ready to share those details online:

XXXXXX COG State Office

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

To whom it may concern,

Please accept this letter as my formal request to withdraw my membership from the Church of God organization headquartered in Cleveland, TN. At the time that I joined this denomination, I was attending XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

My personal beliefs concerning God, Salvation, and the Bible are no longer fully aligned with all of the statements of faith held by the Church of God organization.

No one has done anything to drive me away from XXXXXXX or from the Church of God organization as a whole. I do not harbor any animosity towards anyone in the organization and everyone at XXXXXXXXXX was very kind and caring towards me and my family during my membership. My decision to withdraw my membership solely rests upon the personal changes in my faith when compared to the doctrines of the Church of God.

I realize that this letter will not be pleasing to receive, but ultimately I must be honest concerning the conflicts between your articles of faith and my current personal beliefs. Therefore, I hereby tender my withdrawal of membership and I wish you good fortune in all your endeavors as a church and organization.

Respectfully yours,

XXXXXXXXXXX

I know that this letter isn't radical. But this was a very big step for me. I didn't just ask to withdraw my membership. I let them know that I don't agree with their doctrine any longer. Although, I didn't say way or how.

And I think that may be the crux of the whole issue between the religious and the non-religious.

I shouldn't have to explain. And I won't. If someone from the church calls, I will simply say that my private beliefs have changed. It's honestly not the business of anyone else what I believe about God and why. My right as a human being, as an adult, and as United States citizen is to have my own private opinion about God and exercise that belief to my liking.

Well . . . assuming I'm not harming others, being cruel to animals or destroying the property of others, that is.

Anyhow . . .

That is my First Amendment right -- just as the members of other religions may enjoy this right, too.

I hope to one day write the other two denominations a very similar letter. But, my ties with the Church of God were much weaker and shorter lived. I'm not making too many waves writing a letter to them.

I need to grow up a bit more before writing to the other two denominations. I hope to develop the strength in time.

I'm proud of my little baby step. Even if it is only a small one.

Just Give Us the Facts

Around 2001, students from Jefferson High School in Lafayette, Indiana petitioned the school board by requesting that Special Creationism (Intelligent Design) lessons be taught along side evolution.

These students were not asking for evolution to be muted in their classrooms. They simply wanted Special Creationism to be taught along side evolution.

These students articulated that they wanted to be given all of the facts and then be allowed to decide for themselves what was true. They felt that Special Creationism had merit and needed to be taught along side evolution so that they can make an informed decision.

While this petition was student led, I'm confident (though not certain, of course) that an adult or two were behind this effort.

I suspect this because I started a bible study back in my high school years. Despite my religious enthusiasm in those days, an adult prompted me to meet with my high school principal to gain permission to meet. He prepped me with legal information as leverage (which actually backed my principal into a corner when she first seemed hesitant to comply). Also, adults supported our meetings which furthered our drive as students. We didn't impose our meetings on others and did not meet during school hours. We could meet before or after, according to the law at the time (which I think is still valid, for those of you who insist that prayer has been taken out of school).

So, I'm confident these students had similar influences even thought they were probably just as passionate about this debate as the adults who possibly put them up to this petition.

During the formal presentation of their petition to the school board, the students eloquently made their case. And many of the students who supported the petition donned black T-shirts with white type that read:

Just give us the facts and then let us decide.

And on the back of their snazzy black T-shirts was printed the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Nice touch, I must say.

Students kept insisting to the school board that they deserved to have all the facts. Somehow, they seemed to "know" that Special Creationism was as valid as evolution and deserved to be taught in their biology classrooms. "Just give us all the facts and then leave us to decide", they reiterated.

Interesting . . .

Honestly, I loved their T-shirts. I want one! But I don't think they really understood what they were asking. I think they only fashioned their words to sound like they wanted all the scientific information that was available to them.

But what they really said was:

Just give us the facts and we'll decide which ones we like and don't like.

Because the fact is, Special Creationism is not a scientific theory.

Nope.

Special Creationism doesn't help us understand why a monster strain of Tuberculosis is on the rise. Nor does Special Creationism give us clues as to how we stop it.

Intelligent Design doesn't answer questions about why certain people are immune to the AIDS virus and how that may one day help us achieve a cure.

Special creation "theory" doesn't help HIV patients live longer by understanding that the virus evolves as it continually duplicates inside it's host-victim.

For example:

As an HIV patient takes medication for a while, a variant of the AIDS virus becomes resistant to the medication as the other variants of the virus die off in the patient's system. As a result, a dominant strain overcomes the medication and causes the patient's condition to worsen.

If planned carefully, medication can be paused for a period of time. During this time, the resistant variant starts to make varied strains of the virus again. But in doing so, the resistant HIV population becomes dwarfed by it's own diverse offspring of viruses which are once again susceptible to medication. This tactic has extended the survival and health of patients who are battling AIDS.

The insight for this treatment plan comes from acknowledging and studying evolution. Not from studying Special Creation or Intelligent Design.

Nope. Sorry.

Think of another example. What if you were studying fish in a pond? You needed to find out why the fish were contracting a fungus that was killing many of them. You soon discover that some of the fish are sexual in their reproduction and others are asexual (clones).

You learn from observation that the healthiest fish are offspring of sexual parents while the asexual fish become sick by the fungus most often.

Why?

During your study, the pond dries up due to a drought. All the fish either die or migrate. But fortunately, the pond fills up with water again after the drought and the fish population returns.

Ugh! But you see the previous health trends reverse! Now the asexual are healthier than the sexual fish and the fungus seems to hit the sexual population extra hard.

Why?

Can Intelligent Design answer this question?

No. But studying evolution can.

The genetic diversity in the asexual fish is always very low. So the fungus can run amok with the asexual fish because they have little diversity driving traits that resist infections.

But when the pond dried up, the fish population shrank so much that the sexual population of fish had to inbreed in order to survive! As a result, the sexual fish became more clone-like than the asexual fish; the diversity of their gene pool fell lower than their asexual counterparts!

After understanding the problem, the solution can easily fixed the problem. Find some genetically diverse fish that reproduce sexually and add them to the pond. The offspring of the sexual fish become resistant to the fungus just as before-- all thanks to studying evolution.

If you must insist that Special Creationism is science, then the ways of creation must be studied through the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a fact. Of course we don't understand everything about it. And while we don't know if we humans came from slime billions of years ago, we do know that we have common ancestors with other species of apes from millions of years ago.

So when you say that you simply want the facts, be sure that you really mean that. That's what a good scientist strives for-- just the facts.

Even the uncomfortable ones.

So those students in Lafayette, Indiana were getting the facts. Some of the students simply didn't like what the facts started to imply concerning their literal interpretation of the bible. As a result, they decided that they wanted an alternative to the facts instead.

As it turns out, the school board kindly and gently rejected their petition.

And most of the biology and chemistry teachers at Jefferson High School wiped sweat from their brows as they sighed a great sigh of relief.

The AFA is Right; Not Censoring New JC Show Would Be Unfair

I saw this e-mail today. I'll quote it first, then expound upon it:

Comedy Central set to blaspheme Christ with "JC" show

The Comedy Central network is planning a cartoon series about Jesus Christ entitled "JC."

June 7, 2010

Dear (name removed)

In its promotional material for the program "JC", Viacom describes Jesus as a "regular guy" - rather than the Son of God - and depicts him moving to New York to "escape his father's enormous shadow." The Father is depicted as an apathetic dad virtually addicted to video games and totally uninterested in his son's life.

So Comedy Central is set - unless we intervene - to blaspheme two-thirds of the Trinity on a weekly basis.

A depiction of Jesus on Comedy Central's "South Park" (Courtesy of Comedy Central)See how we expect Comedy Central to mock Christ by viewing this previous offering of anti-Christian bigotry from the show "South Park." Warning - It is offensive, but depicts the animosity the network has toward Christianity.

Yet in recent weeks Comedy Central bowed to pressure from Islamic groups and heavily censored an episode of "South Park" that showed Mohammed in a bear costume. The hypocrisy here is staggering.

Comedy Central shows more respect for Mohammed and for Muslims, who represent two percent of the American population, than for Jesus Christ and the 83% of Americans who believe in him.

We need to send a loud, clear message to Comedy Central and all potential advertisers of "JC" that this kind of insulting programming is completely unacceptable. If we speak with one voice now we can keep this program from ever seeing the light of day.

Sign our petition today and make your voice heard. This petition, with your signature on it, will be sent to the decision-makers who will determine whether this program airs.

At first I thought, "these people have no right to suppress free speech".

Then I realized something else-- the violent, threating members of Islam have already done this when the most recent South Park's depiction of Mohammad was censored on television.

This is not fair after all.

We pick on Jesus because Christians probably won't come together in larger numbers and threaten to murder. One might kill, but a community of Christians won't come together and threaten everyone with misery and death if the JC show airs and offends the majority of America.

But we won't dare say anything about Allah or his (so called) prophet Mohammad (why should peace be upon him? he certainly isn't generating peace upon us after he's been gone for centuries!).

Just that comment above could get me killed if I had a wider audience. I could have this blog pulled because I defamed the name of Mohammad.

Until our society realizes that we need to have the balls to own up to our rights of free speech, free inquiry, and freedom to criticize, then we sure as hell have no business making fun of Jesus Christ without censoring him in the same way that South Park's recent depiction of Mohammad was censored.

We must not forget where we came from. During an era of witch hunts, despotic kings and governors, kidnappers and slave traders, inquisitions, and spreading of religion by dominant force-- a beacon of reason and Enlightenment declared that enough was enough. The people wanted a government that gave a rats ass about the people, a ruler that was respected, but could be taunted, and a freedom to pursue happiness and liberty.

And the people knew that in order to have this, an environment needed to be created where someone could discover controversial truths and express them openly for the ultimate betterment of human kind.

If people can't say something negative or controversial about Mohammad, Jesus Christ, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, or even yours truly, then we will find ourselves too afraid to point out danger when we see it. We will hold on to delusions out of fear. We will dismiss the reasonable when insanity is handed to us. We will fall into a well of ignorance and usher in a new Dark Age.

Mohammad doesn't have the right to do that to us. But until we get that into our heads, we don't have a right to pick on JC while cowering in from of Allah.

Don't Blame the Blasphemer

Suppose a blasphemer speaks out against a deity, causing many offended worshipers to angrily spew death threats and stage destructive riots.

In such a situation, who did the most harm?

Suppose a blasphemer speaks out against any given deity and one or more of the various followers apprehend and murder the culprit.

Who was wrong?

To me, any free nation that supports a blasphemy law (national, or international) is reminiscent of a parent who is willing to do anything in order to circumvent a child's temper tantrum. Such a parent hopes to avoid all conflict because the child is in control and not the parent.

Many children hold their parents hostage in this way.

So then, at what point will the child decide to become reasonable and stop making unrealistic demands without the threat of throwing tantrums? What will finally satisfy the insatiable drive of a spoiled, rotten little child?

At what point will any sort of blasphemy law curb violent outbursts from worshipers of a deity that has been insulted? Who (or what) is protected by blasphemy laws? Who is the true victim when a potential blasphemy law is broken?

Who is the victim when someone is fined, flogged, or even place on death row for blasphemy?

Are we not all blasphemers against at least one other deity? Even theists refuse to pay honor and respect towards any deity in which they do not believe.

Yes, even the theists who desire to enforce the absurdity of blasphemy laws is in some sense guilty of blasphemy themselves!

Does blasphemy injure worshipers so horribly that they have a right to call for fines, imprisonment, beatings or even capital punishment in order to protect their faith?

Why follow a deity that can't protect his worshipers, his religion, his specially chosen leaders, or --for that matter-- himself?

Why follow such an inept being?

I dare say that such a deity is asking to be blasphemed.

And furthermore, the worshipers of such an inept deity needn't throw tantrums.

After all, it's not the blasphemer's fault that their deity cannot stand up for himself.

Tolerance

With all my God-bashing lately, perhaps I sound a little harsh and intolerant.

I don't mean to sound that way . . .

I don't have an issue with someone practicing religion. I don't mind that United States currency says, In God we trust. I'm not bothered by the Pledge of Allegiance including the phrase, One nation, under God. However, I do wish that more people realized that our Pledge never included this phrase until 1954.

I don't really mind prayer in schools. Besides, students can pray in their hearts whenever they want; prayer cannot truly be stopped. Here is a seemingly little known fact: student lead meetings of a religious nature are allowed in public schools. Federal Law allows this. Yep, that's right. Students may have a Christian club or prayer meeting before or after school as an extra curricular activity and pray! pray! pray! And believers of any faith can enjoy this freedom. This can also be practiced during a school's "activity period" or "booster club" period. The only catch is that the organization must be student prompted to ensure the free will of all participants.

So, people should stop saying that prayer has been taken out of school. Rather, such people should use their present freedoms to continue praying in school. Then, focus their rant towards something else more needful -- like generating better funding for their neighborhood school.

Now, I'll tell ya what I truly dislike: intolerance.

Religion should be a private matter because free will must be upheld. This is why prayer in school may continue if students organize for themselves; free will is exercised. The prayer sessions are made private, yet the schools are not forcing religion of any sort. That's the spirit of the First Amendment.

May I also submit that Christians should exchange the notion that culture should be dominated by Christian principles with the idea that they should simply attempt to witness to people. Our government is secular and doesn't need to specifically reflect Christianity. Such a mindset comes from a distortion of an Old Testament concept which assumes the United States has replaced Israel as God's chosen people. Just try to win souls one by one. After all . . . didn't Jesus say, "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"? Consider the notion that Christians should have desire for the advent of the Kingdom of Heaven . . . and not to busy themselves with turning the world into the Kingdom of Heaven.

And what of Paul the Apostle's words when he says not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers? He says to "come out from among them and be separate".

Paul didn't say, "You will be assimilated. Resistance if futile."

Christians shouldn't act like the Borg.

Be tolerant of other people's faiths and the lack thereof; I will be tolerant of yours in return.

Share your faith. Make your point. Disagree with me; Witness to the world.

I'll make my points and share my non-faith. I'll disagree, too. Enlighten the world.

But, if we agree to disagree -- no one has to get nasty.

I think we can all get along just fine with that attitude.

If everyone within the spectrum of faith and non-faith could better get along, I would be quite glad!

Congress shall make NO law . . .

Crushing all deceivers, mashing non-believers
Never-ending potency
Hungry violence-seeker feeding off the weaker
Breeding on insanity

Smashing through the boundaries, lunacy has found me
Cannot stop the battery.

-- Metallica

Believe it or not . . . separation of Church and State is a good idea. This idea IS WRITTEN into the US Constitution as part of the FIRST Amendment. This idea GRANTS freedom of religion -- along with freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The above mentioned freedoms are among the most important in American society. Suppress those rights and you can kiss the "land of the free" goodbye.

Why?

Because . . . people cannot have true freedom if they cannot express themselves according to their own will or desires.

See . . . the religious environment of our founding fathers etched the importance of this concept into their minds. Back in England, you had better align your religious beliefs with the ruler of the day or -- off with your head! Rulers did what they wanted and ruled because they said that God put them on the throne. Got something negative to say about your king? Well, you've just said it about God's sense of judgment, too! Then the king and clergy introduced you to your divine punishment -- a guillotine, flaming steak, or boiling oil, to name only a few. And those tortures were their way of giving you a "going away" party while on your way to enjoy your eternal punishment in hell.

Ouch!

Our founding fathers clearly recognized this problem and didn't want to recreate the same environment after framing our new government.

After all, why do you think they left England in the first place?

Even the pilgrims left because they wanted freedom of worship . . . not because England didn't have ANY Christians there. They weren't leaving to evangelize a new world. They were leaving to be left alone.

The founding fathers understood that variance in belief had to be tolerated in order for everyone to have freedom. The Catholic needs to tolerate the Protestant. The Protestant needs to tolerate the Quaker. The Deist has to tolerate the Theist. And yes, the Atheist deserve tolerance, too. Each gets to practice his or her faith (or non-faith) . . . but none can force this on the other. This must exist not only among citizens, but with the governmental administration as well.

After all, what is the true purpose of our government? I propose that Government's purpose is first and foremost to facilitate the power of rule that belongs to the citizens. Yes -- the citizen's power. Government doesn't rule us, exactly. We elect representatives that are supposed to make our voice valid. If they do a poor job, we fire them by voting for someone else! Government also enforces the laws made and protect the citizens from outside and inside forces that threaten our private property and our personal rights. But, government cannot make any such law that overturns our power as people who govern ourselves. Government is not permitted to strip away our "inalienable" rights. In exchange for this, we support the government with taxes and obey the laws that are enforce by the government -- as long as they are reasonable and truly protect the people at large. Many citizens volunteer for the army that the Government funds through our tax dollars. We give, the Government gives. We support each other, but the people rule themselves through the Government by electing leaders. Keep in mind, any government can go astray. The founding fathers understood this too, and wrote into the Constitution the right to protest and assembly that we might bring grievances to our leaders. After all, government facilitate our power to rule ourselves -- they don't rule us as their people.

Government, however, is not about the business of regulating the morality of the culture. The government is then encroaching on the privacy of the citizens and has overstepped it's bounds. Our founding fathers confirm this ideal by making our government secular and non-Christian. Doesn't matter what the religious orientation was for any of the founding members of our government. They ultimately agreed to make our government secular when they added this statement to our Constitution:

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 the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment, US Constitution (you know, the Law of our land -- if you're a US Citizen)

Congress is the only branch of government that can make laws. (Though, recently, it seems, some Presidential administrations want to push this envelope. This is very dangerous. Never mind your party affiliation). The First Amendment bans Congress from allowing any faith based organization to have laws made in it's favor -- nor can laws be made to suppress the exercise of any religion. These ideas can clash at times and the lines can get blurry. But, a good way to draw the line is to understand that religion is private. Church is private. Government can't stick it's nose in a religious organization's business (unless they are harming citizens against their will. Then, such a religious group has violated the rights of others and should be stopped). But, Church has no business trying to use Government to create a culture that reflects their beliefs.

Not fair. That violates the free will of everyone else. Change the culture through evangelism!

By the way . . . didn't Jesus say that his kingdom was not of this world?

Look at it this way . . . is our nation a theocracy?

Theocracy -- A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.

In other word's -- God's rule (or his 'clergy').

That won't do. Too many people disagree on who God is (or if he is). Christians can't agree among themselves if God is a trinity or only one person. How can they agree with any particular flavor of religion taking over our government and imposing rule? Instead of having two political parties, we'd have a party for every denomination of religious faith.

Just having two political parties makes my head hurt!

But, never fear. Our government is NOT a theocracy.

Old Testament Israel -- that was a theocracy.

Modern day Arab states ruled by radical Muslims -- those are examples of a theocracy.

But the United States of America . . . now that's a Republic.

A Republic is:

• A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.

• A nation that has such a political order.

• A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

• A nation that has such a political order.

• An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.

• A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field

The supreme power lies in the citizens who are entitled to vote for officers. Not God. Not clergy. Not any religion. The citizens -- they are the ones who are sovereign.

Religion has a tendency to breed intolerance. We've seen it in history time and time again. And Again . . . that's why people came to the 'New World' in the first place. Religion breeds intolerance because faith is subjective, yet the rules of religion are often absolute. So without question, someone will not believe in your faith. Never mind if they don't believe in God. If they don't believe in your faith -- what's the difference if they are atheist or Hindu? They don't believe in your God the way you do. Even some people who call themselves Christian are not considered saved by other Christian groups. So, who gets to impose their faith on the world?

This absolutism also tends to cause religious organizations to have deep influence on their follower's lives. Intolerance and absolutism that aims to dictate how you should live so that you can make God happy (or is it all for the clergy? Hmmmm). Regardless, involving your life in a religious faith is a personal decision. Government should NOT pressure any of the citizens to do this. And the interesting part is . . . the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed. So, no act of Congress or vote of the people can erase this ideal.

Government simply does not need the power to rule people's lives in such a manner.

The USA is a Republic -- remember?

I fear, however that our Republic is slowly eroding away. People can become quite corrupt and the citizenry of any country can be lulled to sleep.

I fear that a religion of sorts is grasping the citizens at large and is causing them to forfeit the power of rule into the hands of corrupted entities who influence our government officials.

And believe it or not . . . I'm not referring to the so called 'conservative Christian Right'.

I'm referring to extreme, unquestioning, patriotism.

The religious kind.

Don't misunderstand me! Patriotism is good. We need it. Loving one's country is wonderful. We should be involved and we should care. We should come together as one and be proud of our nation. We should feel fortune and gratitude for our realized rights and freedoms. We should have deep respect for those who died for our country and died to protect our freedom.

Patriotism does not require believing our country is completely perfect. The USA has some blemishes in her past. You can still be a patriot while acknowledging these past (and yes, present) faults.

For example:

• In the expansion of the USA, Native Americans were slaughtered. For restitution, the Native Americans were given tiny plots of land so they can be pseudo-sovereign nations. (Gee, thanks.)

• Africans were bought and traded as slaves for many years after the USA was created. It literally took an act of the President and Congress to free the Negro from enslavement. Even after that, the Emancipation Proclamation was not truly enforced until after the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's.

• Navajo Indians were being assimilated into American culture and being forced to forget their language in new public school programs. That is, until the US military realized the Germans never head of the Navajo language. Then, they wanted the Navajo to use their language for encrypted communication in World War II.

• The US build concentration camps to hold Japanese immigrants during World War II.

• US leaders planned a State sponsored terrorism* scheme called Operation Norwoods. The plan was discovered before it was implemented and people were held accountable.

* In other words, US leaders were plotting to stage the hijacking of a US airplane or bomb US buildings. US citizens could very well become casualties so that the people would become upset and rally behind the government in a show of patriotism and readily support war.

• British leaders requested assistance from the US concerning Iran. To help keep Iran suppressed, US leaders supported Saddam Hussein's efforts against Iran. When Hussein's war effort started going poorly, US leaders sent Donald Rumsfeld to meet with Hussein.** Rumsfeld offered military help in the way of intelligence in order to assist Saddam Hussein against Iran (it was in US and British interest at the time). (no joke. You can find pictures of Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand).

• When Hussein rebelled against US interests, the Gulf War broke out. (And I thought we were trying to liberate the people of Kuwait). Eight years after that, US leaders end up in Iraq again**. Rumsfeld is in charge of the military strike that ultimately captures Hussein and has him tried for war crimes and executed. (I'm not saying Hussein was a nice guy . . . but, US leaders weren't being too nice, either).

** Ironic that Rumsfeld was sent by Ronald Reagan -- whose Vice-President was George H. Bush. And years later, the Gulf War happened; George H. Bush was President. Eight years later, the Iraqi War happens after 911; George W. Bush (H. Bush's son!!!) was President! And Rumsfield was Secretary of Defense for President George W. Bush at this time.

All coincidence?

• The Iraqi war was launched under false pretenses. Alleged weapons that could endanger the US were said to be horded by Hussein before his capture. Military troops were sent in and toppled the Government. No weapons were found. Then, leaders started to say that we invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people. Again, patriotism is used to get people's minds off of the scandal. Our love for freedom and our love for our troops gets exploited.

That's enough for now. You get the picture.

But, hey, I still love this country. And I deeply honor our troops. But, I am ashamed of some parts of US history. But, the strength of the US is that we can freely discuss these things and hold our leaders accountable.

Unless, the people become too patriotic to tolerate listening to the truth.

All the things I mentioned above -- all verifiable fact. None of it is left wing, wild-eyed liberal, hogwash. This problem transcends political parties. Both political parties will exploit hyper-patriotism.

Admitting America's imperfections is not unpatriotic. This is important to understand.

Lutherans realize that their name sake, Martin Luther, did evil things against the Jews and spread antisemitism so hard that Hitler was inspired by it. Lutherans acknowledge this and denounce this evil. Does that make them any less Lutheran?

Extreme, unquestioning acceptance to any leadership is like being in a religious cult. This type of patriotism allows corrupted officials to keep the populous in the palm of their hands. This is a type of brainwashing.

I did say that Christian conservatives were not the religion we needed to fear most in attempting to abduct our government. But, I do think that they are influenced the most by this blind, extremist patriotism. And, many religious leaders exploit this notion as do politicians. Mixing extreme patriotism with faith can cause people to follow God and country -- no matter what. Even if both 'God' and country both get caught doing something evil.

People forfeit their power to voice grievance when they refuse to examine the governments actions for the sake of patriotism. Such people will think the country is never wrong and the leadership shouldn't be questioned. They will support every war, fearing they are defaming our precious troops and spiting on our freedom. This is not the case. You can disapprove of a particular war and still honor and support our troops.

Yes, disapproving of a war and still honoring our troops can still be patriotic. Acknowledging the faults of our nation and still being proud of our country can be separate feelings within the same patriotic citizen.

Church and State need to be kept separate like that, too.