Why Freedom from Religion Matters
75
Why Separate Church & State?
As the U.S. Presidential campaign has worn on, I've watched two interesting trends unfold simultaneously: On the one hand, I see constant news coverage on how both campaigns are doing in their courtship of the Christian right, and on the other, I hear a lot of loud whining by the Christian right that they are being disrespected, persecuted, ignored, or all of the above.
How can both of these situations exist side by side?
I think it helps to review some recent U.S. political history.
American politicians started to pay a lot more attention to the Christian right when that brand of Christianity became instrumental in electing George W. Bush in 2000, and then again in re-electing him in 2004. Carl Rove and other members of the Bush campaign machine riled up Christian fundamentalists by waving hot button issues like gay marriage and abortion rights under the noses of the tabloid press, and then tying these red herring issues to more nebulous concepts like 'family values' and patriotism.
So, if you were for gay marriage then you must be against family values. If you were against family values then you must not be a real American. And so on and so forth. About half of the country found this kind of rhetoric so profoundly offensive that a deep and passionate rift between right and left, Republican and Democrat, still remains in the U.S. today. That split holds steady at right about 45/45%. With about 10% of the country too busy watching "The Biggest Loser" while mainlining Cheetos to really care.
Two facts often get lost in all of this hot rhetoric:
Fact One: The Christian right represents a very small percentage of all Christians and an even smaller percentage of all Americans. The Republican party aggressively courted the Christian right because (and only because) when the small percentage of U.S residents who are Christian right wing extremists was added to the Republican party 45% political base, the addition of that group gave the party the fragile majority it needed to take control of the U.S. government.
Fact Two: In spite of this political tactic,the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States still provides for a separation of Church and State in order to maintain freedom of religion for all of us, and for some of us, freedom from religion. What this means is that no religious group, be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, or Zoroastrian has the Constitutional authority to impose its beliefs on the rest of the U.S. populace.
The principle of freedom of (or from) religion is a founding precept of American Constitutional government. In order to legally make the interests of Christian fundamentalists more important than the interests of the rest of the people in this country, we would have to rewrite the Constitution, a document most Americans have never read. While this idea has periodically seemed to appeal to the Bush administration, I submit that there are compelling reasons not to do it above and beyond the fact that most Americans would barely notice.
Where Does the Idea of Separation Originate?
People often wrongly assume that the reason the U.S. Constitution separates Church and State is that the early settlers of the U.S. were Christians who had been persecuted themselves in Britain, and so, out of empathy, these original settlers wanted to make sure that no one ever had to endure such persecution again in the new land.
Unfortunately, that is not quite the way it actually happened. The Quaker faith does value diversity and freedom of religion, and a few of the early settlers were Quakers. However, most of the early American colonists were British Calvinists or Puritans; Protestant sectarians who left Britain to practice their own lack of tolerance more completely by starting communities in America in which everybody was denominationally just like them.
When I say that Puritans were religious intolerants, I don't mean they were rude when passing Catholics or others on the street. What I mean is, back in Britain, they had a habit of capturing, drawing, and quartering 'Papist' clergy and persons devoted to 'the Whore of Babylon' A.K.A. Catholics. A standard punishment for holding Catholic religious views was partial hanging, followed by opening up the body cavity of the offender and ripping his or her entrails out while still conscious so s/he and the crowd could see them.
One of the main reasons I personally feel the U.S. Constitution should not be rewritten to give the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists more consideration is that, having been raised Catholic and then, failing at that, having briefly tried out just about everything else, I assume my entrails would be among the first in danger of being removed. This prospect really troubles me. I hate pain, and the site of my own bloody guts held up before my half-suffocated face would probably upset me a lot. But in all fairness, the Catholic Church has a pretty bad rep in the area of religious tolerance too. (No, the Inquisition wasn't an early census form.)
The doctrine of the separation of Church and State is widely credited, not to the early American colonists (who were fanatics themselves), but rather to two of the founding fathers, President James Madison and President Thomas Jefferson, both of whom found the avoidance of ongoing blood and guts religious battles (which at that time were still fresh in the memories of British emigrants to the U.S.) desirable for the effective governance of a free country. The doctrine evolved over several Presidential terms.
Consequently, the First Amendment to the Constitution 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 the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The phrase 'separation of Church and State' was first used by Jefferson in 1802 in a letter to the 'Danbury Baptists' which said, in part:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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."
The principle has been enforced in U.S. Courts of Law ever since.
Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
The short answer is, we can.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court for over 200 years because it helps to keep and insure the peace and the public good.
As a popular colloquialism puts it, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
By preventing any one religious group, including Christians of any stripe, from dictating their beliefs (through government) for the rest of us, much public violence and strife is cut off at the root. But the flip side to this is that Constitutional law also protects Christian zealots themselves, giving them the right to public assembly and free speech just like any other American group. I can disagree with Christian fundamentalists, but I can't go around drawing and quartering them or even force them to shut up. We both have equal rights under the law to state our minds, believe what we will, and live as we do.
The rights of fundamentalist Christians are only abridged when it comes to government: they can assemble and speak their minds, but they cannot insert their beliefs into public policy or law, at least not Constitutionally. They cannot force their beliefs on others, nor can others force secular beliefs on them. They can, if they choose, leave America and start their own colony like their Puritan ancestors did, and hope that their new colony remains homogenous and does not fall to Jeffersonian notions of liberty and freedom of thought like the United States did when it was first coming together.
I'm sure lots of them, and lots of the rest of us, wish that would happen.
In the meantime, for the sake of the public peace, I am all for maintaining the status quo as outlined in the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, even though it makes some contemporary Christians damned cranky. While pandering to religious bigotry might have been a briefly successful political tactic at the beginning of the new millenium, over the long haul it has an atrocious reputation for creating violence and barbarism. Our founding fathers knew this first hand.
On a more personal level, my political and religious views are changeable. What matters most to me is not the beliefs themselves, but my right to have and express them freely. That's why I am currently casting my lot with the Democrats, the 'Big Tent' party of diversity and inclusion, imperfect and squabbling through they always are and likely always will be.
As Will Rogers once said, "I don't belong to any organized political party: I'm a Democrat." For my own part, I would extend that statement to:
I don't belong to any organized religion. I'm a pagan.
Because I live in the United States, I still have the freedom to say so.
|
The Separation of Church and State: Writings on a Fundamental Freedom by America's Founders
Price: $7.53
List Price: $16.00 |
|
Separation of Church and State
Price: $15.92
List Price: $24.50 |
|
Religion and the Demise of Liberal Rationalism: The Foundational Crisis of the Separation of Church and State
Price: $16.00
List Price: $19.00 |
|
Why the Religious Right Is Wrong About Separation of Church and State
Price: $4.99
List Price: $23.98 |
|
The Causes of the English Civil War (Ford Lectures)
Price: $34.86
List Price: $55.00 |
|
A Military History of the English Civil War: 1642-1646
Price: $23.84
List Price: $38.95 |
|
The English Civil War: Papists, Gentlewomen, Soldiers, and Witchfinders in the Birth of Modern Britain
Price: $10.86
List Price: $22.00 |
|
Essential Histories 58: The English Civil Wars 1642-1651
Price: $9.00
List Price: $17.95 |
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Well said and articulately worded.
This is an important issue. It very clearly demonstrates the deterioration going on in the States, because people no longer understand it anymore, by all reckoning.
Separation of Church and State was intended to prevent the very pandering going on today in mainstream America to the Christian right, itself as a guise of an increasingly totalitarian regime where our "representatives" instead tell the People what they should be doing, even in their private lives... under the guise of moral and religious sanguinity. Zealotry as a political force, so the political system can crowbar its way into people's private lives and way of life. But it doesn't pass the moral muster, obviously. This was what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent with the separation of Church and State - mind you, they were trying to keep any one church from doing it, because too many citizens still had guns at that point for anyone to be able to envision a situation where their elected representatives themselves started pulling that kind of nonsense. But, welcome to modern America - it is to politics pretty much what absurdism and dadaism are to art.
That being said, the Union is unique in the world to actually put the Creator first, in an actual political sense. All rights are said to go from God, to mankind, to mankind in its more limited role as citizens - and from citizens on _down_ to their government. That's right, the government had less authority than its citizenry, because its power came _from_ the citizenry. In fact, a citizen could choose to not be bound by the laws of the land at all - that was totally their option. They could choose to live outside the law, but while they weren't obliged to obey the law, they willingly forfeit the right to be protected by it, too. Anyone living outside the law who was causing too much trouble in the community would find the community could very easily take up a collection and put a bounty out on their head, and the now protectionless individual could be hunted down for that bounty like a rabbit. They called people who opted out of the law "outlaws" - although today, we generally call them politicians.
One of the things putting God first did was create the ability to strike legislation down when it was "against the public morals". Today, this would simplify a whole lot. Chartered corporation dumping waste into your water? Charter dissolved. Another conducting involuntary drug tests on orphans? Charter dissolved. After all, it's just plain obscene, and against the public morals. The Creator certainly wouldn't approve. Of course, given some of the weirder passages in the Bible, that could get creepy really fast. Perhaps it's for the best that we don't do that anymore. But when I turn on Fox News, and see pundits freewheeling around with libel, calumnies and slander all over the place, it'd be nice to be able to pull the plug on that sort of irresponsible behavior. Morally, it's the equivalent of watching a college accident video on the internet. And that's when I realize there is a Higher Law, God's law, and that these pay-for-play pundits committing political jackassery are just modern-day outlaws from moral law. They don't live by their conscience, and they voluntarily forfeit the right to live in a world that works. The right to live worthwhile lives. And so, like everybody else on the planet, I spend my life "parked in" by people making these insane choices, stuck in a world that doesn't work, and waiting to die.
By the way, "dork" means "whale penis". =)
Another great Hub from one of my favorite Hubbers!
I think it's so interesting that radical fundamentalist Christians have been so vocal about "legislating morality" (based on their own version of "morality", of course) - as in issues like school prayer, gay rights, sex education, etc. However these same folks are the first and loudest to condemn fundamentalist Muslim success in other parts of the world in doing just that.
Your disgustingly graphic - but accurate, I'm afraid - examples of "Christian against other Christian" legally-sanctioned savagery in the not very distant past sounds an alarm for me as well. Given that I'm not only a lapsed Catholic agnostic pagan type - but a gay one on top of it - I am worried about my own entrails as well - among other endangered parts - should our Bill of Rights fail to protect us from these religious zealots as intended.
Very interesting comments & article. Thanks for giving me something to think about tonight, pgrundy!
I agree wholeheartedly with what you have to say, even though I don't label myself in the pagan, agnostic, or atheist category. I've grown up wholeheartedly believing in the right of those with differing religious or moral viewpoints to believe differently. I seem to recall from my various reading that people of the Revolutionary era were largely agnostic and a-religious, and that the Puritanical religious values that imbue the Constitution were not prevalent at the time.
I agree quite strongly that the religious right as a political entity is a tiny fraction of religous people. Though sometimes the Evangelical Christian viewpoint is represented as some kind of state religion by the media. I've always heard about my own religious faith (Mormonism) that there are as many types of Mormonism as there are Mormons, and I'm glad the U.S. is one of the best places to celebrate that statement. In my own extended family, we all interpret our religious heritage in different ways, with varying degrees of conservativism and liberalism. I guess, for the record, I'm a liberal Mormon, whatever that looks like. In the 19th century in America, btw, Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism who claimed to see God the Father) was tarred and feathered by a mob of who were very, very threatened by the political majority the Mormons represented in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri. Just my random thoughts.
PGrundy, I'm anxiously awaiting the day your get your writing syndicated. You are one talented writer!
Pam - I'm in total agreement with everything you say here. I'm now going to place a link to this hub from my Freedom from Belief hub, because yours is in many ways the US here & now specific political version of my more general philosophical angle. Keep them coming!
Terrific hub - beautifully explained. This is one of our foundational values that we shouldn't surrender to a small (but exceedingly vocal) bunch of extremists.
No amendments to this hub, as far as I'm concerned. Great hub, Pam!
Gets top marks from me too!
Thumbed Up, bookmarked and Stumbled. (So is Paraglider's companion Hub.) Many thanks!
Wow, so many great comments. I finished this last night, went to bed, and woke up to all these great responses. Thank you all for reading and for leaving your thoughts on this here.
I do hope that our government takes a hard left in the near future. I think we will be pretty far down the road to totalitarianism if it doesn't, and at this point I can't call it. The American people have to be mad enough to demand change, but to get mad we have to understand what is going on, and so many don't. In my more paranoid moments I suspect our government of keeping us stupid, of purposely sabotaging education, because the original vision for this country is so much more radical that people understand and it gets in their way. They don't want anything to get in their way.
We'll see. I may Toronto-bound soon enough, but I hope not.
Sorry, but I can not agree with the kudos expressed above. Unlike most, I actually read American history and teach it, as well as on the Constitution. I teach original intent of the Constitution, teaching through the actual notes of record of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the debates therein, as well as the history leading up to the revolution, the Articles of Confederation, and eventually the convention. Though you are accurate on how the term "separation of church and state" came about, you are sorely mistaken on the concept that it has been enforced ever since. Your history is also askew on the history of the first settlers here and their reasons for coming, on the original intent of the 1st Amendment, the long held interpretation of it. You are also off in your assessment of the percentage of the so called "religious right" of US Christendom. Often the religious right is very religious and not right. However, they often are very correct. Sorry, but I find it ironic that you would consider the religious right to be intolerant when I just read an intolerant rant.
Interesting take on it, troylaplante. Kinda disturbing that you teach history though. Where? Bob Jones University?
Troy--I was also wondering, which part did you find most intolerant? The First Amendment of the Constitution, or the direct quote from Thomas Jefferson? Perhaps it was the paragraph where I defended the right of Christian fundamentalists to believe whatever they want, to speak their mind, or to gather publically?
Pgrundy, good treatment of freedom of religion. These things are not taught in the schools, and so young Americans don't know them.
However, why vote Democrat as a way to defend freedom of religion? When was the last time a Democrat actually stood up and spoke out on this subject? Isn't the current presidential candidate courting the religious right, too? Both sides try to show how tolerant they are of dissent by talking about Judeo-Christian values, but nobody among the Democrats that I've ever heard of stands up for pagans, agnostics or atheists.
The United States of America and its constitution and laws are unique in the world, not just because of the right to be free from religion. The constitution, and the case law surrounding it, also allow for:
1) the right to assemble
2) the right to be free from aeizures and searches
3) the right to bear arms
4) the right to own property and not have it taken away (mostly case law -- but still a very big part of American jurisprudence).
The only party that openly speaks out in favor of all these rights is the Libertarian party.
Hi Pam--- what an excellent and impassioned rumination on the importance of separation of church and state. Our founding fathers were children of the Enlightenment and I think they got it right. The problem has always been where to draw the line and this has usually depended upon whose ox is being gored:-) We are such a diverse nation after all. It behooves us to be tolorent of one another, which all of us, religious or not, politically conservative or liberal, are not.
I totally agree with you on the cynicism of the Republicans who began courting the religious right as far back as the Reagan administration ( Remember the Moral Majority?) and I have,like you, been disgusted by the antics of Karl Rove & Company and the divisiveness they have engendered. For that reason I think it is wise to remember that Jimmy Carter is also a "born again" Christian and that the church which gave us the Inquisition also gave us Mother Theresa. I remember that the reason that Evangelicals got into politics in the first place was that in the 70's, they felt that their civil rights were being abused when prayer was banned from public schools and it became illegal to put a creche in a publlic park at Christmastime. They felt like their religious beliefs were being trampled on by the Liberal, Democratic Establlishment. Like I say, it all depends on whose ox is being gored. Nothing is ever quite as simple as it seems. You could write twelve hubs on this subject and not exhaust the possibilities--and I wish you would. I would read every one of them because I love your passion, your intellect and your dynamite writing skills--thumbs up up up.
So you're a Libertarian [judging from your perspective]? I hope you are, 'tis the best party around thanks to Thomas J.!
Speaking of the fellow, he's a terrible reference of argument for separation of church and state. He wasn't ven around for the writing of the constitution! He was in France, so his opinions on the subject weren't really heard when the writing happened.
"The rights of fundamentalist Christians are only abridged when it comes to government: they can assemble and speak their minds, but they cannot insert their beliefs into public policy or law, at least not Constitutionally. They cannot force their beliefs on others, nor can others force secular beliefs on them. They can, if they choose, leave America and start their own colony like their Puritan ancestors did, and hope that their new colony remains homogeneous and does not fall to Jeffersonian notions of liberty and freedom of thought like the United States did when it was first coming together."
I grew up in a church that would burn you alive for saying that! So glad I removed myself from the hypocrisy.
I cannot agree with this hub more! I often wonder where we forgot the seperation part? I have talked to many other people in the world, and I think that the US puts too much emphasis on what religion a person is that is running for a political party. I don't care if the person worships Satan, or whoever, as long as they arent going to screw up in office! How you worship is your own PERSONAL choice- leave it out of your politics, even according to the Bible the 2 do not go together. Thanks for the great hub :)
Another excellent Hub pqrundy. I couldn't agree more.
I wouldn't waste much time responding to troylaplante. His profile is fairly lengthy and detailed but doesn't mention anything about teaching history. I think the avatar he's chosen is a clear indication of his attitude. Arrogance and intimidation.
Since he wasn't present at the time the constitution was created I wonder how he can presume to teach its "original intent". Perhaps he has a time machine and has interviewed the authors.
Hi everybody,
Aya & tkeeley--I used to sit by a Libertarian at my last job. His name was Bob. He used to say that Libertarians are kind of like Republicans who smoke pot. Clearly he was a bit off on that!! Seriously though, I'm usually fairly apolitical, no particular allegiance, but the last eight years have been so alarming I'm more willing to dive in.
Ms. Sooz, thank you thank you!
ColdWarBaby, I had to go back and look at troy's avatar--it's a gun or something? What a nut ball. I remember when there were no trolls at Hubpages, but they've arrived and some are here to stay apparently. I guess it comes with the territory, doesn't it?
robie2, you are so right. A person could write 12 hubs on this topic easily and not exhaust the nuances---Satori, there's an idea for you! (I'm tired after one!) Despite what some folks at Hub Pages may think I am not anti-Christian, but having been raised in a Church with a big stick and having fought my way out over the course of many years, I'm enjoying the light feeling way too much to ever voluntarily pick up that baggage again. No thank you. But certainly there have been great Christians. If I should I have mentioned that, I'll gladly mention it now, no doubt about it, lots of great ones starting with JC himself.
Amen Sister!
Maybe Libertarians used to be that way...the huge difference between us and the fascists occupying the white house is that 1) we're anti war and 2) we believe in the choice of the individual. There's less big business cooperation and more little guy aid in the libertarian end [at least the current candidate, Bob Barr] than there is in the entire mob of useless neo conservative republicans.
First, I am HARDLY a troll. I am a hubber, a columnist, part time teacher, blogger, and a few other things. Second, whether or not my profile mentions that I teach history is irrelevent. I do it nonetheless. Third, how can I teach original intent? Well, gee whiz, it is called READING and studying. There are plenty of documents left for us to read, there are notes from the actual debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that few people have actually ever read but claim to know what the Constitution means. I actually read and teach that information on a weekly basis. There are books like The Federalist Papers, the Anti-federalist Papers, journals, and a host of other information that many are too lazy to go through but will criticize those who actually do and know what they say. This is a case in point. The argument that one can not know original intent unless one was there is incredibly specious and arrogant in and of itself.
I find it amazing that someone can attempt to extract a ton of data from an avatar. Get a sense of humor.
For the record, I am certainly NO FAN of Bob Jones University or EITHER Bob Jones, for that matter. I do not find it the least bit disturbing that I teach history. What I find disturbing is that I do more research, more reading, and more teaching than most people who teach history in academia today. I find it equally disturbing that people (like in this hub) ascribe to history (re)written only within the past forty to fifty years. I actually use the original documents to teach history rather than rewrite their content or wrest something out of its context and twist it to fit my belief system (such as with Engel vs. Vitale or with Everson vs. Board of Education). I allow the documentation to conform my belief system. Novel concept, I know.
If y'all don't care for that idea and the fact that I have the confidence to say so based upon actual study and comprehension rather than assenting to what I have been taught (the two are vastly different, which is by design), than I couldn't really care less.
Amen to you too CJ!
tkeely, thanks for the clarification on that! I suspected Bob was oversimplifying his definition.
Hi Troy! The problem is you don't really make an argument here, you just state your superior authority on the matter and point to the fact that you read original documents. Maybe if you actually said what you meant--as in, form an opinion and explain why you hold it--instead of just pointing out that you are smarter than me it would be more effective. No one cares knows you or cares if you are smarter or better read than me. Say something substantial and people will be less likely to pick on you. (I think. I can't speak for all involved.)
My apologies for the troll comment, it's just that, you did sound kinda trollish there. As in, Oooo, I'm Troy the teacher and you're a big doody head! Not so impressive, you know? Not a good start.
Speaking of reading background source information . . . I just read hubber troylaplant's profile and hubs. While I'm sure he really believes his opinions about this topic are based on "the facts", one can't separate oneself entirely from preexisting bias. After all, bias is just another word for "point of view". People who claim to be somehow in possession of the absolute "unbiased" truth are deluding themselves. Selecting an avatar stating "taking aim at liberalism" (accompanied by the business end of a gun) hardly promotes this guy's claim to be a seeker of objective "truth" about issues like this one.
A great example of twisted neocon thinking!
I think you'd do lovely in politics if you picked a good party. I'm under the conviction that there are two parties that make sense and everyone fits into either of them, including the dems and reps: Socialism and Libertarianism. While they both vary highly in and of themselves (fascism can be drawn and quartered with libertarianism of some people and communism the same with socialism) they pretty much are the basis for all democratic political systems. You have the one side, the left, who trust government and politicians to do the thinking, and then there's the "right" side with their belief in the common man and his ability to make his own decisions. Libertarianism is dubbed "pro-choice on everything" because we essentially allow the people total freedom to establish common law, in America this resides at the state level. While I am in part a socialist (i hate globalisation and want to see less money go to the corrupt big businesses) I cannot wholly trust politicians, especially American, to do my bidding for me. While it would be great if we were all perfect, we simply aren't. Therefore the theory is that if enough of us have equal voice the majority rules and more people are happier.
Marina...neocon? Think again. Do you even know what a neocon is? I am very much a classic conservative and FAR from being a neocon. Would you consider Barry Goldwater to have been a neocon? Jesse Helms? James Madison?
And yes, my opinions are indeed based upon the facts. YES, one can certainly separate one's self from pre-existing biases. I have changed my opinions over the years as a result of reading objectively. I have read religious documents and allowed them to mold my theology. I have read historical documents and allowed them to mold my beliefs. I actually used to be a liberal Democrat years ago then woke up.
pgrundy, the ironic thing is that your entire hub is that you are teaching history authoritatively. Your commentary about Bob Jones just shows the apparent hypocrisy. I couldn't care less if y'all disagree, but history is on my side. I have bookshelves full of history books, journals, and document collections, theology books, biblical commentaries. There are a ton of resources online. When you actually take the time to read, your perspective will change. When you read behind the men who actually wrote the Constitution, your perspective will have to change. And yes, original intent can be readily derived from the founding documents. The same happened for my theology, which was molded and pounded by years of walking the faith as well as study.
Hi marina! Yes it's never all that charming when someone just invokes a greater claim to authority with nothing to support the claim, but that tactic is such a common part of neocon thinking and also fundamentalist Christian thinking. I suppose really, in both those systems, 'girls' should not be thinking at all! Get back in that kitchen! Make me a baby! LOL!
Hey t.keeley, that's not a bad way to look at it, but it does get muddled at some point. Like, right now, I'm so conflicted about my work. I hate what I do, I hate the bank (I work for a bank) I hate the CEO, I don't give a rat's ass if the bank fails, I wish it would. I only work there for the health care, which I can't get unless I work for a major corporation, even though I hate big corporations. I look at it like corporate slavery. I'm a slave and I know it. If I could get what I need from government, I can take care of making money myself doing things I respect and care about, but no, I'm kind of blackmailed. So I need the support of the system to freely do what I'm best at. That's confusing I think--I mean, as you mention, it doesn't break down exactly in to right and left, libertarian or socialism.
Troy, once again, you still aren't stating WHAT your opinions are nor are you supporting your opinions with any evidence. You are just asserting that you have opinions and that they are better than mine. At this point, I still have no idea what you think, only that you think you have better ideas about this. How can you fail to see how lame that is?
I'm an author so of course what I write possesses author-ity. If I thought I had nothing to say I wouldn't say it.
I have to assume that you basically have nothing to say, since you seem to have no need to share it here despite being formally invited to do so. I'm glad you know lots of stuff and read original documents. Good for you dude.
Read my "If I were president" hub. I think what I'd do to your bank would please you ;)
My final comment re Troy
blo·vi·ate (blv-t) intr.v. blo·vi·at·ed, blo·vi·at·ing, blo·vi·ates Slang To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner: "the rural Babbitt who bloviates about 'progress' and 'growth'" George Rebeck.
Let's not waste any more time on it.
Bloviate--I like it!
I loved how you stated what seems so obvious, yet many of us don't get the perverted logic of it: "So, if you were for gay marriage then you must be against family values. If you were against family values then you must not be a real American. And so on and so forth."
I miss the days of progressive sceince, space discoveries, and the idea that my president is SO much more intelligent than I am. But the truth is, I haven't had that feeling in a very long time. Bill Clinton is the only one that straddled the line between brilliant and Bubba-like, but his personality's tragic flaws will forever color our hindsight views of him.
An article in Psychology Today called "The Ideological Animal" provides amazing insight into what shapes us into Conservatives or Liberals or somewhere in between. Empirical studies suggest that religion, education, and foreign travel figure prominently in our views of the country and world as it is. It's definitley worth a look-up.
Thanks for a beautifully-worded and highly educational Hub!
Hi REritr! Thank you for your comments and encouraging words. I know what you mean about the old days. Did you ever think that calling a Presidential candidate 'intelligent' would be an insult? What is sad and ironic is that of course he is the most working class candidate to have run for office in a very, very long time--maybe since Harry Truman, I'm thinking. Everyone since then has been filthy rich, including John McCain. I blame years and years of conservative government for dumbing down the American people to this point. I hope in the coming election things will change to the point that we can reverse that depressing trend.
When I first read this thread, I did not expect rational comments to be made by Troy.
Everyone, read the first amendment. The 1st amendment SAYS that it protects religion from government. It does not say or imply the opposite, as was said in the OP, and endorsed all around.
PGrundy, so you know, he did make one point. That is that this is an intolerant rant.
From the article, above:
"Fact Two: In spite of this political tactic,the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States still provides for a separation of Church and State in order to maintain freedom of religion for all of us, and for some of us, freedom from religion. What this means is that no religious group, be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan, or Zoroastrian has the Constitutional authority to impose its beliefs on the rest of the U.S. populace."
You seem to be saying the same thing. By not allowing the government to legislate and encroach upon religion, freedom of religion is thus supposed to be secured. It is an obligation the government has. When government uses one interpretation of a tenet of one religion in an effort to justify or drum up support for a course of action on its part, government is simply defaulting upon that obligation, because it nearly always encroaches upon the freedom of the other religious perspectives, usually the ones that are in the minority. Therefore, protecting religion from government also necessitates protecting the role of government from specific religions.
Of course, if people in and out of political office allowed themselves to be guided by their own moral compass, whatever their religion, most of the problems in the world could be easily avoided despite our differences. But this is so mind-meltingly fundamental that it's a cause I'm getting bored with championing... because from a moral standpoint, we either sink or we swim.
I'm still waiting for someone to point out which points in the hub were intolerant. Was it citing the First Amendment verbatim, citing Thomas Jefferson in his own words, or was it the part where I defend the rights of fundamentalists and anyone else to speak their mind and believe what they want? Which part was most bothersome?
I remember a funny incident: A woman writer (not me) had quoted part of the Bill of Rights in a public forum and a neocon blasted her for citing "communist propaganda just like all you liberals do." She hadn't said it was the Bill of Rights, she just quoted the words. The guy looked like a total dick after she revealed the source.
OK, then. I’ll go off the top of my head with a few thoughts and get the wonderful feeling of being told how wrong I am. Gee I can hardly wait for the sweet, supportive, patriotic replies. And I know ‘I am making no point with this post’.
Well, since you asked, let me jot down a few thoughts anyway. First the OP was very inflammatory and prejudiced against many, as I see it. It erred totally in describing the first amendment. It uses terms that are just relative, and it is distasteful to me if it serves no purpose to help and only to start a fight, i.e. Christian right. It is far too nebulous, and every person has a different view of it.
Pretending that our political system and Christianity are separate by design is uneducated. Scripture is etched all over the monuments of Washington, D.C. Do you think some “right wing Christian extremist” snuck into the city and vandalized the place?
So, here are some of the specifics:
“I hear a lot of loud whining by the Christian right that they are being disrespected, persecuted, ignored, or all of the above.” I have heard no such thing. Those are very strong combative words, and they are exaggerated to evoke discord, whether or not intentionally. There is no attempt to be rational, objective or accurate with that statement. It can be designed to start a fight and make all people who do not agree with you mad.
“About half of the country found this kind of rhetoric so profoundly offensive that a deep and passionate rift between right and left, Republican and Democrat, still remains in the U.S. today.” Again, I have heard nothing of people finding this so profoundly offensive. I see no such deep and passionate rift, either. Those are very strong words.
There are always disagreements, and they seem to have nothing to do with Christianity and politics to me. Hubpages is the main place where I see religion being any issue at all. The economy is not religious. The environment is not religious. Education is not religious. Unemployment is not religious. Health care in not inherently religious. Those are the issues in this election. You are divided by religion, not me, not people I see.
I sure don’t see any major religious issue for Democrats or Republicans either, just people trying to stir up trouble where none exists. I know Obama probably smoked pot and hung out with radicals stuff. Has Obama fallen for it? Is McCain concerned about religion? Who is?
“With about 10% of the country too busy watching "The Biggest Loser" while mainlining Cheetos to really care.” Cute way to depict your fellow countrymen. That type of humor seems to just make people mad in the context of the rest of the OP. It does not show tolerance and an effort to bridge any perceived gaps. It is arrogant and condescending, as I see it.
“Fact one:The Christian right represents a very small percentage of all Christians and an even smaller percentage of all Americans.” Right, left, up, down – that is just a way to box people into some prejudiced labels. People vote, not religions. All I can quantify is that 77% of all Americans are Christians, according to Pew Research. All the “right” stuff is just rhetoric, the farthest thing I can think of from a fact.
“Christian right wing extremists” = temper getting out of hand as the thread goes on. Inflammatory garbage is really all it is. It is designed to infuriate a huge group of people who have immense intelligence and loyalty to things like God and country.
Why are you so bitter? Oh I know, you are not. Well, if this is the work of a happy person, then it requires a smily face avatar – LOL.
“Fact Two: In spite of this political tactic,the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States still provides for a separation of Church and State”. Separation of church and state is not in the first amendment. That is a made up term by Jefferson allegedly. The quote you referenced does not change the 1st Amendment, nor does he even state any disagreement to it. Read the first amendment. It protects religion from government, not the other way around. It protects us all, regardless of religion, from government.
This is a rant against religion when the rant should be against government, it seems to me. Christianity is not doing one thing that the constitution prohibits. Government is doing a lot the Constitution prohibits. Christians mess up, not God or the Bible.
To rant against Christians is really foolish when 77% of all Americans are Christians. The Bible says all Christians mess up. What is this whole thread trying to fix? Get rid of the Christian right? Whoever they are…“in order to maintain freedom of religion for all of us, and for some of us, freedom from religion.” The Constitution does no such thing. It never needed to and had no idea that it was necessary, it seems to me. By the way, you are totally free from religion by your choice. There is no threat to that, and it is unfounded paranoia to fear this at this time in our country.
The Constitution is about government and the people. All it does is guarantee that religion is free from government. There are immense problems with the Constitution being twisted. Religion has no guilt in that, as I see it. I can assess the rest of the OP from my opinion, but it would yield more of the same and accomplish nothing, I am confident.I could go on and on.
I only bring this up because you asked, PGrundy. I initially ignored this thread because I found it horribly offensive to me and everything I think this country stands for. I did not want to start a fight. I read it and moved on. However, when I saw the comments made by Troy and the irrational responses to them, in my opinion, I came to his defense. He did not need it whatsoever, but I felt compelled anyway.
I can go on with the rest of the thread, but I am confident everyone who reads this and the OP, they will know where I stand with the rest of it. I am not confident more specifics would help a thing.
I am not here to fight, but everyone has their limits. You are pushing the buttons of an immense number of people, and you know it. I see this as the exactly wrong way to accomplish anything in America or anywhere else. We cannot generalize and prejudice ourselves into progress.
Thank you viralprospector for at least sharing actual opinions instead of just pointing out that I'm stupid. Many of the words here are indeed strong words and they are meant to be. I stand by them. It is not my intent to try to get along with or build a bridge of understanding to the Christian right. I meant to draw a line, and I do believe I did that. Thanks for you input.
Hi, pgrundy! You and I share a remarkably similar religious history. Are you sure we're not the same person? Remind me to tell you a couple of priest jokes.
Seperation of church and state is critical to a free society. This wall is being chipped away peice by peice, one brick at a time and it's been going on for a long while. In the last...oh, let's say 8 years...it seems they've started in with jackhammers and the walls collapse is imminent. The religious right's influence in politics is frightening. Why? Because their agenda is intolerance, conformity to THEIR belief systems, THEIR morals. Never mind that many of their leaders turn out to have feet of clay (and those clay feet are sometimes nudging you from the stall next door.) When their leaders fall in shame and disgace, no matter, the Christian army marches on. Every american should have to watch the award winning documentary, "Jesus Camp". It will scare you more than any horror movie and will make you think twice the next time you see a politician touting the fact that he has the endorsement of the religious right, or any religious organization. In my world, the support of the moral majority would be the death knell for politcians, for people would understand that that meant an erosion of the freedoms we have enjoyed. Is freedom really why we go to war? Really? That's always the excuse, isn't it? The justification? Why then do we ignore the war right here in America? These moralists, these self-righteous fanatics (yes, I said it) are organized, they do NOT walk softly, and they carry a big stick! We must mount a defense. My belief system is: You stay in your closet, I'll stay in mine, and it is of no concern to the politicians what we are doing in there.
Rent "Jesus Camp" now. See how they are training their future army, while we do nothing.
Thanks, p, sorry for the rant. So, there are these two alter boys, see, and the....
Hi Christophe!
You know, there are a lot of us out here... I went to a group once that was set up by a liberal parish especially for the purpose of bringing lapsed Catholics back into the fold. The man who ran it, a theology professor at a prominent Catholic university, said that the second largest religious group in the world (second only to practicing Catholics) is lapsed Catholics. I think he's wrong. I think we're the largest group, we 'failures'. Though it takes us much pain and courage, most of us eventually do see the shell game for what it is and then tell them what to do with that big stick, but by then we're so used to carrying all that baggage we really do need an arsenal of jokes just to remind ourselves to put the bags down--that no one is making us carry them anymore.
The group went badly, by the way. (Big surprise, huh?) Oh, it was okay for awhile, but after about a month we were going through the Apostle's Creed and ended up on opposite ends of a conference table with him shouting over and over again, "Do you believe in the Resurrection of the Dead?" And I'd say, "You mean literally?" And he'd say again, "Do you believe in the Resurrection of the Dead? Answer yes or no, period!" After about six rounds of this I finally lost it and said, "No! Of course not! It's freakin' stupid! I don't even WANT it to be true you nutball!" And that was pretty much that.
Oh well.
I find that religious zealots have thin skins and quick tempers. Already two of them have come out of the woodwork here to lambast me for the insensitive nature of my defense of the first amendment, even though no one is forcing them to read it or agree with it. Methinks they doth protest too much.
Maybe he was a papal spy?
Yes, I have read their comments. They have that True Believers Syndrome maybe. They won't listen to logical arguments and they can never be gotten through to. My way or the highway. Lord, what fools these mortals be.
PGrundy;
You emphasized
“After about six rounds of this I finally lost it and said, "No! Of course not! It's freakin' stupid! I don't even WANT it to be true you nutball!" And that was pretty much that.Oh well. I find that religious zealots have thin skins and quick tempers.”
To which I reply,
There is no sense in going into the pure clinical side of that, but using caplocks and exclamations in a story out of the blue about your “hurts” from religion? Really, you need to get over your hurt, and it will not help to bring prejudiced bigotry to a place where all are free to read it.
You then write,
“Already two of them have come out of the woodwork here to lambast me for the insensitive nature of my defense of the first amendment.”
I reply,
You do not know me. You write prejudice as bad as anything I saw 50 years ago. It is dangerous and disgusting. I did not and will not lambast you, quite the opposite. I feel sorry for you.
By the way, you did not defend the 1st amendment, you made a mockery of it as I have clearly written in previous posts. You can’t read when you are in a delusional state, so I do not expect you to understand that.
You pontificated, “even though no one is forcing them to read it or agree with it. Methinks they doth protest too much.”
I contend;
Now, you think the answer is to not let the “enemy” (those you are so angry at even though you do not know them) read your prejudiced, bigoted writing? Then, the literary syrup, :methinks they doth protest too much.” 8th grade, anyone?
However, God is good. You see, you call me names, and I am proud of that. There are a couple of reasons I say that. First, I say to you as bluntly as you have said; that I am proud, in a still sad way, that you are prejudiced against me. I am in terrific company.
You call me a “religious zealot”. Thank you for that. Religious is something I am very proud to be. Zealot = a person of enthusiasm, zeal since I am obviously not from the era before Christ where the other part of that definition comes (come on you are not that delusional are you?) Religious + zealous = me? Wow, thanks!
How about the "religious right"? Did that make you feel better? Well, it sure makes me feel better… Religious = sure I am. Right? PGrundy, this is sure not something you want to be wrong about! So, I will thank you again for giving me that title.
My favorite is your “religious right wing extremist”. I am so proud of that one. Religious = ditto. Right = ditto. Wing = the mark of an angel. Wow, that is my goal in life. I want to do work that is reminiscent of the work of an angel. I want people to really wonder if I was an angel.
See, delusion can be good after all. All you need is God to make the delusions worth pursuing.
Don't be delusional + hateful. Don't be delusional + prejudiced. Don't be delusional + living in the past. Don't be delusional + illiterate.)
Given those three ingredients, I am thrilled to be an extremist of right, angelic religion. Thanks again for the compliments!
Hi viralprospector. I believe in preserving your right to believe whatever you want to believe. That doesn't mean I have to share your beliefs or respect them. People are fond of saying that we have to respect each other's religious beliefs. It's a thing people say to change the subject. In truth, we all know of religious beliefs for which we have no respect. Do you respect the right of voodoo practitioners to sacrifice chickens to ancient African gods? What I mean by respect is, do you hold out the possibility that those beliefs might have a grain of truth in them? No?
Well I don't hold out that possibility for 99% of what masquerades as Christianity right now. If you need to believe that makes me delusional, guess what? I don't care! I still will fight for your right to believe in what you do, however personally nauseating I find the your ideas. I will fight for your rights, but I won't personally grant your ideas respect because I find them offensive.
I don't have to be tolerant or nice to you. I have to leave you alone. If I am willing to leave you to believe what you believe, why do you not extend the same courtesy to me? It is because you, sir, are as intolerant as I am. The only difference between us is that I would fight and die for your right to be a jerk, but you would hang me for mine.
That's why I wrote this hub. I stand by it.
PGrundy;
You write, "but you would hang me for mine."
That is just more delusion, prejudice and exaggeration, my point exactly.
Rights is it now? I do not need you defending my rights, and I never questioned that. It seems crazy to bring it up out of nowhere. No one mentioned that, and I sure never indicated I have any issue with your rights. Weird...
You ask if I think there are threads of truth in other religions? I suspect so, but again it is beside the point.
You write, "I don't have to be tolerant or nice to you." You have made that case clear. What is scary is that you actually seem proud of that!
viralprospector, I'm tired of this. You have totally missed the point of this article. My attempts to help you see the point have been unsuccessful. It seems to make you happy to call me delusional. Whatever.
You know, this is a place for people to write what they will, in their own way. If you have something to say (which I don't think you do) you could always write your own hub instead of harrassing me here at mine.
You make my point better than I ever could. Thanks for that anyway.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.
So, we have proven Jefferson wrong. He was right about many things and very wrong about many things.
George Washington -
"Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection ! and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large. And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
So, the fact that Jefferson and Washington fail to see eye to eye over religion - does that not add considerable weight to the argument that religion has no place in governance and is best relegated to the personal domain?
Paraglider;
I personally would not conclude that. Jefferson is proven wrong in that particular hypothesis. So, it would not be logical to say that since one is wrong, we should give it any credence whatsoever. Your treatment of it was not one bit logical. Yet, I doubt if you and I differ much on this issue.
That said, I think drawing a conclusion of the role of religion in politics is a simple matter. To want no religion in politics would be saying that religion has no good to offer. That is prejudiced and totally ignorant. One would have to be the stupidest person in the world to conclude that religion has no good in it. I know you are not that stupid, far from it, Paraglider.
In fact, we need to do the best we can for people, the government, the environment and anything we touch. To do that, we must be open minded. We must take the good and discard the bad of religion, poilitics, etc. Prejudice forces absurdly wrong decisions to be made.
The real debate here is what of religion is in fact good. Is "thou shalt not kill" good? Of course, so it will be in government. Why is that hard to agree on? Who cares who came up with it first. It is part of government, it always will be, and we should all agree that that is fine.
I hate prejudice!!!! If anyone wants to exhibit it around me, I will react. That is all I have done here, and more prejudice will get more reactions from me.
Just because 77% of Americans profess to be of a Christian faith doesn't mean that they want to wear it on their sleeves. I believe that most people born into a tradition of Christianity in their families just accept that tradition with many of them failing to embrace it fully. Others seek meaning and grace in other faiths.
But the blessing of America is the idea that we have the ability to believe, not believe, be churchgoers or non-churchgoers.
Faith is extremely personal and I, for one, do NOT want anyone proselytizing to me about their faith any more than I want someone trying to get me to vote for their political candidate.
No matter what fundamentalist Christians say, this country has always been a magnet and a melting pot for many religious faiths, ethnicities and traditions. Preserving that diversity is precisely why religion should have NOTHING to do with politics or government.
Those who are not comfortable with that should find ways to move to countries where their religion IS their government, since that is not the promise of this one, thankfully.
I think there is a mean spirited debate in this thread which serves no purpose whatsoever. If you are a Christian and truly follow Christ-like precepts, then once you have learned the people to whom you "witness" do not have ears to hear you, you are NOT supposed to belittle, begrudge, insult or even ARGUE. You are supposed to shake the dust off your shoes and gravitate towards those who WILL hear you. And if, indeed, the meek shall inherit the earth, I sure don't have occasion to see very many meek, modest Christians living lives the way Christ would have wanted.
VP - {To want no religion in politics would be saying that religion has no good to offer. That is prejudiced and totally ignorant.}
Not true. Politicians can be religious or not, as they please. But they should not impose their religion on others. Please don't use phrases like'prejudiced and totally ignorant' in my vicinity. It's unbecoming of you, even if you do coyly add that it doesn't apply to me. Be manly, ok?
Paraglider;
Hmmm, you misread really bad, nothing coy here. I don't operate anything like that. Manly?
Just so everyone knows, from now on I will delete any more posts that use name-calling to make and argument, and I will also delete any more viralprospector posts that assert the U.S. is a Christian nation without citing any references or rational arguments.
This isn't a bar fight, it's just a hub about my opinions on the Second Amendment. Thoughts and comments are great, but I'm tired of hate mail and I'll delete it from now on.
"manly" - a very old-fashioned word which I thought might appeal to your sense of humour, VP. Perhaps I misread - perhaps you miswrote. It takes two to garble ;)
In response to America being a Christian nation...
What defines a christian nation? it's certainly not the values in the constitution. I don't necessarily find the constitution inherently Christ-ike anyway...for starters:
1) the constitution does not say all men are created equal, that's the declaration's job. So the mainstay of our system doesn't even count all men equal, much elss women and slaves [since they would ahve for certain been mentioned by the founding fathers].
2) In order to be a christian nation the landslide majority must be christian, and after you tally all that up you're left with about 5000 groups within that name alone that never can agree with each other!
3) Our laws would be derived from the Old Testament, since God's nature has never changed and therefore we ought to kill adulteresses. I'm just kidding here...the teachings of Christ sort of revamped those rules and then ignored them because the jews were no longer the chosen ones...long story, but America is NOT the new jerusalem!!
4) The church would be the head of the state, and guess what? It's not!
5) The pope would be the next president.
6) Roe v. Wade would never have been passed if we truly were indeed a Christian nation.
7) Homosexuals would be shipped to New Zealand for exile.
8) Palin is the next messiah...
AND THE LIST GOES ON AND ON...
"With about 10% of the country too busy watching "The Biggest Loser" while mainlining Cheetos to really care"
Funniest line I've ever read in a hub!
Bravo for your stance and opinion, Pgrundy. And since this has turned into a VERY interesting read...I feel that I want to give my opinion, too.
First of all, there is no such thing as separation of religion from government, or of belief separated from government. Our leaders are human beings who were born into whatever religion, or, lack of religion their families held. The families form cultures within cultures of a society. Conditioning is a matter of course no matter what religious beliefs are involved.
A person who wants to be in government is a human being who takes all his childhood conditioning into office with him/her.
A politician is a person who craves one thing....Power Over. If using his religious upbringing will brng him more votes, then so be it as a tool. If saying that he does not believe in god will bring him closer to his power to rule, so be it as a tool to him. Still, those conditions he was taught to believe in are part of his method of ruling. If he is from a catholic background, he will take catholic ideals and concepts into office. If he is fundamentalist christian, or moselem, he will take those concepts and attitudes into office with him. There is NO separation of government and religion in that man's or woman's mind. And since human beings make up our government, there can be no separation of religion from government.
You have a really neat way of seeing what is happening in government. Where you see it as a religious tug of war (I did as well at one point, I live in the bible belt and have been called the devil because I am a bioenergetic healer=Reiki Master) I see much of what is going on as a smoke screen.
Government is a FINE ART. War is a FINE ART. Economics s a FINE ART. By that, I mean that every reaction possible is known by the people in power before an action takes place. We are manipulated; kept in front of the tv; conditioned to have a good work ethic so we can support the government; our freedoms are dwindling even as we watch the final campaign before the vote, We are becoming divided into two camps: The Haves and the Have Nots. The middle class is becoming squeezed out and fingers are pointed toward blaming the Economy which only improves with war. And while we are being kept so busy with what the government wants us to LOOK at, they are moving about under the smoke screens doing us all in. I know it sounds paranoid, but they are busy medicating us right now. And besides that, I will do my duty and go vote, but do you think for one minute that it isn't already decided who will be our next president?
Well, I got my rant in too. Thanks for the funny and well written article. I am a fallen angel too! =o)
Karen, what a fascinating take on this, I really appreciate your thoughts and comments. What especially struck me was your comment, "they are busy medicating us right now." This year, I quit taking about $400 a month worth of medication meant to reduce anxiety and regulate my blood pressure. In its place, I started walking 45 minutes a day, started eating right, lost 15 pounds (so far, still losing) and started being honest about my feelings the work I do and the life I lead, and I feel better than I ever have, no drugs.
I'm not discounting how miraculous proper treatment with antidepressants can be--I think they have their place and are in many cases miracle cures. However, in many, many other cases, the problem is lifestyle-related. We work horribly stressful jobs where we know we are expendable and disrespected, and often we work more than one of them and still don't have enough money to stay on the treadmill. Isn't it better to admit that is an untenable lifestype than to start taking lots of drugs so we can maintain it?
Off topic, I know. I got to ranting there! Sorry! Anyway, thanks again for your comments!
jolly good. important issue needs to be reinforced. i shall have to research what paganism means then if it is not an organised religion. but yes you are right to have changeable religious and political views - change is the key to the solution.....for lo yea verily and forsooth - I Have Spoken......:)
Pam, I love your hubs. I came to this from one of Paragliders hubs. Glad I did.
Thank you Jewels! I appreciate you too!
LOL
I see VD does not stick to spreading his vitriol just on his own hubs and the forums.
Good hub. :)
Personally, I think the men who wrote the constitution were extremely clever. In giving the "christians" free rein to do their thing without government interference, said christians were sooo happy, they never stopped to consider it would be a two way street. Oops.
And are still bitching about it. lol
Clever.
Thank goodness they were clever. I don't want to imagine where we would have ended up had it been different. As Pam illustrates, having my guts taken from my insides and twirled around a few appendiges doesn't turn me on either.
Hi Mark & Jewels,
You know what though? This is one of only two hubs (out of 89 so far) that I got ugly comments on and had to delete a few. On the other hand, I feel like getting hate mail was in a way a sort of rite of passage as a writer and now that I'm through it, I nev er have to get my 'first hate mail' ever again--it's old hate now! lol!
BTW--Still dancing over the Obama win. Still cry everytime I read about it. (o:
WOW! Once again you have floored me. I enjoyed reading the hub, which I agree with profoundly. I too am a lapsed Catholic and have tried my hand at other philosophies. I enjoyed reading all the comments, as well. This is what my teenager would call "GOOD STUFF!" I'm looking forward to reading the rest of your hubs. Keep up the good work. You are amazing.
Thanks Disturbia! Lapsed Catholics always recognize each other. Seriously, for every devout Catholic I think there is another person who was so profoundly screwed up by the whole trip it takes the rest of their lives of unwind. But it can be done. (Not easily though! LOL)
Another solid gold hub.
Bothered by your assertion that hanging,drawing and quartering was practiced by Puritans on Catholics that they "captured" in England. Whenever this revolting means of execution was practiced it was a judicial form of execution meted out to those convicted of treason. It is true to say that many Catholics were indeed sentenced to be executed in this way though they were most often burned alive. This particularly took place in the time of Queen Mary, Henry V111's daughter. Puritans were much later. I think you might be confusing Protestants with Puritans.
Hi Pgrundy,
I think you are a little off with your assessment of separation of church and state. The founding fathers did not want government interfering with religion (for example, requiring a person to state a particular faith in order to hold office as was required in Europe, etc.). I think you are reaching too far if you expect people to divorce their values from the way they vote. How we each individually reach our own opinions and how we organize politically to promote those opinions are fundamental to freedom and expression. Many times religiously motivated values are good for society. The abolitionist movement for example was aligned within a Christian perspective. The intent of the separation clause is to prevent government take-over of religion and government suppressing religious views of the people so that people could vote based on their own conscience, NOT to remove religion from the formation of ideas. You almost seem to have a litmus test for views in that if a view "fits" within a specific religious prescription then it must automatically be expunged else law would be tainted by religion and thereby establishing religion. I'm sorry, but that is too far-reaching. Separation of church and state is not the same as "religious neutrality" which seems to be more what you are arguing.
Wow ... this is what a writer is supposed to do. Discussion following your hub tells how effectively it is written to churn grey matter.
hot dorkage says:
15 months ago
OOooh i get the first comment. I sorta feel like a guy doing a virgin. In some religions that's a must.
Better hurry up and post it or somebody else is likely to beat me to it!