This is a paper I recently wrote on the changing atmosphere of American democracy and religion, somehow when posting the margins got messed up:
The recent 2008 general election has aroused many tempers throughout America. A large number of people in our country have finally and strictly taken sides in a debate that is as old as the country itself. That debate is over how our country should be governed concerning the morals and values that produce the laws in our society. Unfortunately the election of Barack Obama also intensified this battle against traditional values. In the last weeks the news has been flooded with Christians and atheists, also called humanists, battling back and forth over what laws should be implemented and which laws are constitutional and so forth. For the most part Christians believe that their theological principles are the best to base government off of while the humanists argue that mankind has the capability to govern and exhibit good will towards men without relying on the “myths and fallacies of Christianity.”
A premier debate has been about California’s passing of Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment to certify that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid and recognized in the state of California. Opponents say that the result of the vote was fascist and bigoted. Now I agree that have been some individuals who voted in favor of the amendment strictly based on their unfettered hatred of homosexuals, but the majority of people who voted in favor of the amendment were doing so based on their beliefs, which they have every possible right to do. In a democratic society, people vote for issues based on their beliefs and interests. Opponents have even gone so far as to call the ruling of the vote wrong or unconstitutional. My understanding of our nation is that there is no right and wrong, there is only what is permitted. What is permitted is ultimately decided by the people. If the majority of the population decided in favor if re-instating slavery then all it would take is a vote to make it law. Now of course there would be mass rioting and revolting, but the point is that slavery would once again be officially law. The constitution is not a living document. That is to say that the constitution is the culmination of laws that the majority have decided upon. If you don’t like what’s in there, you have the right to try and convince people to see things your way, that’s why our brilliant framers included the second amendment, but you don’t have the right to not adhere to the rule of law decided by popular vote.
I believe that the underlying theme of this massive election is that of some people deciding that Christianity is not the principles that they want to be governed by. That notion is fine but those same people have conjured the nerve to tell believers in Christ that they are also no longer able to utilize their Christian principles as the foundation of their lives. I take personal offenses when someone begins to tell me that my vote is wrong or unconstitutional. An unconstitutional vote is a horrid contradiction of terminology. Barack Obama has become the champion of these individuals who refute Christian doctrine. I find this odd for the fact that he is a self professed Christian. His election has somehow emboldened them to take radical action to impose their agendas. These “progressives” want to once and for all separate church and state, which is impossible to me. Separation of church and state, though a good idea by Jefferson, can only be used in the context of the government not interfering with religions. It cannot and will not ever mean that faith groups can’t use their devout beliefs to make decisions and vote parallel to them.
Believers of Christ want their environment, state, country and laws to reflect their views, in much the same way as a fish wants its surroundings to be water. When a vote comes up that brings to the forefront issues that they feel strongly about they are going to vote how they believe. As long as there are Christians in this country, there is going to be a population of people who want their laws to reflect Christianity period. It’s become apparent to me that the humanists have figured out that there will never be a separation of church and state as long as the Christian population remains so they have begun refueling a movement to eradicate the Christians from the country. The premise is: if there is no church to separate then it won’t be a problem. We know that socially secularized countries don’t usually work out. Just recently the wildly liberal city of Amsterdam has decided to repeal some of its more radical institutions (Blad). Apparently when a community legalizes immoral activities, the criminals of that community decide to make lucrative, quasi-legal, careers out of them. Thus, your country’s crime rate goes up and your GDP goes down due to lack to tourism and decrease of taxable revenue. The American Humanists Association, who blatantly tells the public that they have “strategically” located their headquarters in Washington, D.C., mention that a part of their mission is to unite “Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Pagans, and others, [that] do not identify with the predominant Christian doctrines.” I find it interesting that an organization of people that claim a dedication to “dispelling harmful myths” would team up with any religious group.
After examining the mission statement of the humanists it becomes clear that they only desire to assault the Judeo-Christian religions, due to the influence on the legal system of America. Time and again the humanists claim the religion, especially Christianity, breeds catastrophe. This may be true for some faiths but I find it hard to understand when the basic point of governance promoted in Christianity is the golden rule. Luke chapter 6 verse 31 clearly states. “And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them like wise” (The Holy Bible, New King James Version Luke 6:31). Of course secular idealists such as George Bernard Shaw would tell you that “the golden rule is that there are no golden rules” so basically you have the ethical right to terrorize others as long as it is in your interest. This kind of moral relativism is what compels people to commit these heinous crimes. Charles Manson would no doubt subscribe to that Shaw-like ideology. For without these influences on contemporary law, murder would not be murder. People would kill people just as easily as they swat flies. This is of course an extreme example but I feel that it permeates throughout the entire idea of what is wrong and what is right.
Again my main beef is with people telling people of faith that what they believe in is wrong, uneducated etc. Lately the media, even though only possessing an elementary level of understanding about Christianity, confirms that belief in the principles set forth in the bible, are untenable. Comedian Bill Maher, among many other high profile celebrities, has made it his personal mission to disassemble Christianity, saying that it is a “neurological disorder”. Not really a big deal if Maher feels that way but I find it interesting that there are many people who feel that the endless ponderings of Socrates are enlightening while the parables of Jesus are senseless. For some reason these people have a serious problem exclusively with the Judeo-Christian religions. These days they have gotten both vocal and even violent. It leads me to wonder who the real fascists are when an impenetrable conglomerate of media and politicians as of late, suggest that the people voting in favor of their beliefs are a menace to society.
The fact is that the U. S. A. was framed around Christian principles. Though as of late the some factions of the legal system are moving further and further away from these principles, there are still some laws that reflect values found only in the Christian belief. For example, article 34 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the current set of laws that govern the U.S. military, still considers the idea of adultery, a felonious act. I suspect that even the humanists probably would be pretty upset if their partners committed adultery against them. My question to them would be why, why care about an idea that was derived from a set of principles that you deem mythological and uneducated. I believe the simple answer is because they work, they are true and we don’t have anything that works better or that caters to mankind’s innermost feelings so well. If it’s not broke, why fix it?
The United States of America is still the uncontested best country in the world, and it has achieved this status by implementing the Christian principles that a large majority of Americans cherish. Even the most thorough domestic detractors seldom go and apply for a visa to move to any other country. The country should not be blindly guided by any religion, but the one that most Americans base their existence on happens to be Christianity. Out of this majority, a government will usually reflect the beliefs of the people who give it life. The current high rate of separation of ideals and values will ultimately divide the country to a point where it cannot be sustained and the great experiment that was the U.S.A. will fall to history like other nations before it.
Bibliography
A premier debate has been about California’s passing of Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment to certify that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid and recognized in the state of California. Opponents say that the result of the vote was fascist and bigoted. Now I agree that have been some individuals who voted in favor of the amendment strictly based on their unfettered hatred of homosexuals, but the majority of people who voted in favor of the amendment were doing so based on their beliefs, which they have every possible right to do. In a democratic society, people vote for issues based on their beliefs and interests. Opponents have even gone so far as to call the ruling of the vote wrong or unconstitutional. My understanding of our nation is that there is no right and wrong, there is only what is permitted. What is permitted is ultimately decided by the people. If the majority of the population decided in favor if re-instating slavery then all it would take is a vote to make it law. Now of course there would be mass rioting and revolting, but the point is that slavery would once again be officially law. The constitution is not a living document. That is to say that the constitution is the culmination of laws that the majority have decided upon. If you don’t like what’s in there, you have the right to try and convince people to see things your way, that’s why our brilliant framers included the second amendment, but you don’t have the right to not adhere to the rule of law decided by popular vote.
I believe that the underlying theme of this massive election is that of some people deciding that Christianity is not the principles that they want to be governed by. That notion is fine but those same people have conjured the nerve to tell believers in Christ that they are also no longer able to utilize their Christian principles as the foundation of their lives. I take personal offenses when someone begins to tell me that my vote is wrong or unconstitutional. An unconstitutional vote is a horrid contradiction of terminology. Barack Obama has become the champion of these individuals who refute Christian doctrine. I find this odd for the fact that he is a self professed Christian. His election has somehow emboldened them to take radical action to impose their agendas. These “progressives” want to once and for all separate church and state, which is impossible to me. Separation of church and state, though a good idea by Jefferson, can only be used in the context of the government not interfering with religions. It cannot and will not ever mean that faith groups can’t use their devout beliefs to make decisions and vote parallel to them.
Believers of Christ want their environment, state, country and laws to reflect their views, in much the same way as a fish wants its surroundings to be water. When a vote comes up that brings to the forefront issues that they feel strongly about they are going to vote how they believe. As long as there are Christians in this country, there is going to be a population of people who want their laws to reflect Christianity period. It’s become apparent to me that the humanists have figured out that there will never be a separation of church and state as long as the Christian population remains so they have begun refueling a movement to eradicate the Christians from the country. The premise is: if there is no church to separate then it won’t be a problem. We know that socially secularized countries don’t usually work out. Just recently the wildly liberal city of Amsterdam has decided to repeal some of its more radical institutions (Blad). Apparently when a community legalizes immoral activities, the criminals of that community decide to make lucrative, quasi-legal, careers out of them. Thus, your country’s crime rate goes up and your GDP goes down due to lack to tourism and decrease of taxable revenue. The American Humanists Association, who blatantly tells the public that they have “strategically” located their headquarters in Washington, D.C., mention that a part of their mission is to unite “Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Pagans, and others, [that] do not identify with the predominant Christian doctrines.” I find it interesting that an organization of people that claim a dedication to “dispelling harmful myths” would team up with any religious group.
After examining the mission statement of the humanists it becomes clear that they only desire to assault the Judeo-Christian religions, due to the influence on the legal system of America. Time and again the humanists claim the religion, especially Christianity, breeds catastrophe. This may be true for some faiths but I find it hard to understand when the basic point of governance promoted in Christianity is the golden rule. Luke chapter 6 verse 31 clearly states. “And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them like wise” (The Holy Bible, New King James Version Luke 6:31). Of course secular idealists such as George Bernard Shaw would tell you that “the golden rule is that there are no golden rules” so basically you have the ethical right to terrorize others as long as it is in your interest. This kind of moral relativism is what compels people to commit these heinous crimes. Charles Manson would no doubt subscribe to that Shaw-like ideology. For without these influences on contemporary law, murder would not be murder. People would kill people just as easily as they swat flies. This is of course an extreme example but I feel that it permeates throughout the entire idea of what is wrong and what is right.
Again my main beef is with people telling people of faith that what they believe in is wrong, uneducated etc. Lately the media, even though only possessing an elementary level of understanding about Christianity, confirms that belief in the principles set forth in the bible, are untenable. Comedian Bill Maher, among many other high profile celebrities, has made it his personal mission to disassemble Christianity, saying that it is a “neurological disorder”. Not really a big deal if Maher feels that way but I find it interesting that there are many people who feel that the endless ponderings of Socrates are enlightening while the parables of Jesus are senseless. For some reason these people have a serious problem exclusively with the Judeo-Christian religions. These days they have gotten both vocal and even violent. It leads me to wonder who the real fascists are when an impenetrable conglomerate of media and politicians as of late, suggest that the people voting in favor of their beliefs are a menace to society.
The fact is that the U. S. A. was framed around Christian principles. Though as of late the some factions of the legal system are moving further and further away from these principles, there are still some laws that reflect values found only in the Christian belief. For example, article 34 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the current set of laws that govern the U.S. military, still considers the idea of adultery, a felonious act. I suspect that even the humanists probably would be pretty upset if their partners committed adultery against them. My question to them would be why, why care about an idea that was derived from a set of principles that you deem mythological and uneducated. I believe the simple answer is because they work, they are true and we don’t have anything that works better or that caters to mankind’s innermost feelings so well. If it’s not broke, why fix it?
The United States of America is still the uncontested best country in the world, and it has achieved this status by implementing the Christian principles that a large majority of Americans cherish. Even the most thorough domestic detractors seldom go and apply for a visa to move to any other country. The country should not be blindly guided by any religion, but the one that most Americans base their existence on happens to be Christianity. Out of this majority, a government will usually reflect the beliefs of the people who give it life. The current high rate of separation of ideals and values will ultimately divide the country to a point where it cannot be sustained and the great experiment that was the U.S.A. will fall to history like other nations before it.
Bibliography
Agnes, Michael E. Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition. Cleveland, OH:
Wiley Publishing Inc., 2008
Shaw, George B. Maxims for Revolutionists. Cambridge, Mass: The University Press, 1903.
U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, art. 34
Jefferson, Thomas. In a letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802
The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc., 1982
Blad, Erin. “Good News: Amsterdam to Close Brothels, Gambling Parlors”. December 2008,
Citizenlink.org. 9 Dec 2008.
“Brief Introduction of AHA”. 2008. Americanhumanist.org. American Humanists Association.
2 Dec 2008.
“Bill Maher: Christians have neurological disorder”. 18 Feb 2005 Worldnetdaily.com. World Net
Daily. 2 Dec 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment