Religious Freedom v. Religious Privilege

This whole National Day of Prayer thing is generating some very amusing whining from the usual suspects.

The National Day of Prayer has a rich history and heritage. How sad it is in our politically correct age that we are no longer spiritually tolerant. The controversy generated by the Pentagon’s disinviting Franklin Graham and the entire National Day of Prayer Task Force is both un-American and unnecessary. Graham has expressed his opinion on the danger of embracing the teaching of Islam concerning jihad and the death of infidels. Not once has he or anyone on the National Day of Prayer Task Force suggested that Muslims be excluded from First Amendment protections against the prohibiting of the exercise of their religion.

The same First Amendment to the Constitution which prohibits Congress from making any law that establishes a particular religion or prohibits the free exercise thereof also protects Franklin Graham’s right of free speech to express his opinion about Islamic fundamentalism.

First of all, lots of things have "rich history and heritage" in the United States, including slavery.

More central to this post is that whether or not we have a mandated day of prayer is irrelevant to religious freedom. You have, just as you did before, the right to worship anything you want, including Yhwh, Jesus, Al'lah, Odin, Dionysus and my socks. You also have, just as you did before, the right to pray any time you want. No one can stop you.

What this guy is feeling the loss of isn't the right to pray, it is the privilege of having a Day just for people who pray. It's totally unnecessary, it's exclusionary to people who don't pray, and a secular government has no business getting involved in religion and prayer. No one has stripped anyone of religious freedom, what has been removed is a tiny portion of religion privilege. Seriously, cry me a river.

As for Franklin Graham, he is indeed allowed to state any opinion he wants, including something derogatory towards Muslims. The First Amendment does indeed grant one that right, however, the First Amendment does not protect one from the consequences of one's speech. If I walk up to my (Jewish) boss and start saying extremely derogatory things about Jews, I certainly have the right to do so, and he has a right to fire my ass for doing so. Mr. Graham has the right to say whatever he wants, and the Pentagon has the right to make sure he doesn't say it with their support.

Independence Day

iran, independence day, resistance, democracy, freedom,
Right now, if you live in the US, you are preparing to celebrate our Independence Day. This will involve hotdogs and hamburgers and a grill, flags and fireworks and family. I know, because I'm getting ready for all that, too. The Fourth of July is one of my favorite holidays, because I love summer and cookouts and fireworks, and the Fourth combines all three.

Before you go have your fun, however, please remember the people of Iran. They deserve an independence day, too. They are fighting and dying for democracy, for their votes to be counted, and we can help them. We can do what Sarah asks:

Sarah (from Iran):

dear my friend

i don't know your name,thanks alot supported me and iranian people in your blog,i hope we could reach to peace without murder and fight. please cross you fingers for us. thanks a million for your comment in my blog.

with best wishes for you,

sarah

Sarah, we are thinking of you on our Independence Day. We hope you get one soon, too. Stay well, my friend.

How We Forget

atheism, atheist, d'souza, christianity, christian, slavery, freedom, infanticide, religion,
I've heard of Dinesh D'Souza before, but this is the first time I've ever read anything by him, and I have to say, not impressed. I'm not impressed by the atheist bashing, and I'm not impressed by the amazing history fails.

(The article itself is fairly long, so I'm going to indulge in some ". . ." for brevity's sake.)

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal,” he called the proposition “self-evident.” . . . This idea of the preciousness and equal worth of every human being is largely rooted in Christianity.

Since when? Many Christian sects today do not consider all human beings to be inherently equal. What about Christian homophobia? Would Mr. D'Souza claim that gaybashing fundies recognize the inherent equality of all human beings? What about complementarians? Would Mr. D'Souza claim that people who think wives should obey and be subservient to their husbands consider all human beings equal? Clearly not.

Those examples are just two modern examples of inequality in Christian thought. What about 50 years ago when many Christians believed that whites and blacks should not be allowed to intermarry because blacks were unequal to whites? What about 200 years ago when Christians believed that slavery was acceptable for the same reason?

. . .

In ancient Greece and Rome , individual human life had no particular value in and of itself. The Spartans left weak children to die on the hillside. Infanticide was common, as it is common even today in many parts of the world. Fathers who wanted sons had few qualms about drowning their newborn daughters. Human beings were routinely bludgeoned to death or mauled by wild animals in the Roman gladiatorial arena. Many of the great classical thinkers saw nothing wrong with these practices. Christianity, on the other hand, contributed to their demise by fostering moral outrage at the mistreatment of innocent human life.

Really? Do I really need to mention the Crusades? All 9 of them? There's always the Spanish Inquisition if the Crusades aren't enough.

. . .

Christianity did not immediately and directly contest patriarchy, but it helped to elevate the status of women in society. The Christian prohibition of adultery, a sin it viewed as equally serious for men and women, and rules concerning divorce that (unlike in Judaism and Islam) treated men and women equally, helped to improve the social status of women.

First of all, when did Christianity as a whole ever directly contest patriarchy? In most Christian sects, women are not allowed to lead congregations or achieve positions of power. In many Christian sects today, women are regarded as little more than fetal containers for the next generation of worshippers.

Secondly, the "Christian" prohibition of adultery? Is Mr. D'Souza forgetting what part of the bible the ten commandments are found in? That would be the Jewish prohibition of adultery.

. . .

Mr. D'Souza's defense against Christianity's support of slavery is downright laughable.

But Christianity, from its very beginning, discouraged the enslavement of fellow Christians. We read in one of Paul's letters that Paul himself interceded with a master named Philemon on behalf of his runaway slave, and encouraged Philemon to think of his slave as a brother instead. Confronted with the question of how a slave can also be a brother, Christians began to regard slavery as indefensible. As a result, slavery withered throughout medieval Christendom and was eventually replaced by serfdom.

You know what the difference is between slavery and serfdom? Very little.

Serfdom is the socio-economic status of unfree peasants under feudalism, and specifically relates to Manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe. Serfdom was the enforced labour of serfs on the fields of landowners, in return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields

Bragging that Christianity replaced slavery with serfdom is like bragging that you quit heroin by taking meth.

. . .

The end of the article includes this amazing warning about the decline of civilization at the hands of atheists, completely without facts.

Let me conclude with a warning first issued by one of Western civilization's greatest atheists, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The ideas that define Western civilization, Nietzsche said, are based on Christianity. Because some of these ideas seem to have taken on a life of their own, we might have the illusion that we can abandon Christianity while retaining them. This illusion, Nietzsche warns us, is just that. Remove Christianity and the ideas fall too.

because atheists don't have morals, or value civilization. we're all crazy anarchic nihilists, just waiting for the chance to blow it all to kingdom . . .um, well, nowhere, I guess.

Consider the example of Europe , where secularization has been occurring for well over a century. For a while it seemed that secularization would have no effect on European morality or social institutions. Yet increasingly today there is evidence of the decline of the nuclear family. Overall birthrates have plummeted, while rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births are up.

And how is that bad, exactly? care to give my some facts and figures on how that is affecting people in Europe? basically, Mr. D'Souza is arguing that divorce and low birthrates are bad because they are. Bad, that is. No studies, no facts, no figures, just a bald assertion.

Nietzsche also warned that, with the decline of Christianity, new and opposing ideas would arise. We see these today in demands for the radical redefinition of the family, the revival of eugenic theories, and even arguments for infanticide.
In sum, the eradication of Christianity—and of organized religion in general—would also mean the gradual extinction of the principles of human dignity. Consider human equality. Why do we hold to it? The Christian idea of equality in God's eyes is undeniably largely responsible. The attempt to ground respect for equality on a purely secular basis ignores the vital contribution by Christianity to its spread. It is folly to believe that it could survive without the continuing aid of religious belief.

if you're going to tell me that atheism causes eugenics and infanticide, at least give me a link. i have no idea what the fuck Mr. D'Souza is talking about, and no proof that Mr. D'Souza does, either.

and i do enjoy the idea that atheists are not capable of maintaining freedom. because we don't benefit from it or anything. apparently, we're not just anarchic nihilists, we're slavers, too!

If we cherish what is distinctive about Western civilization, then—whatever our religious convictions—we should respect rather than denigrate its Christian roots.

and keep the atheists from killing the babies, apparently.

Why I Really Don't Believe

bible, sin, atheism, atheist, religion, jesus, god, freedom, christian, christianity, logic
First of all, Christian Anti-Defamation Council is the funniest concept evah! Hey, jackasses, you are more than 75% of the population of the US. That's called a majority. You're not being persecuted, get over it.



Second of all, if you want to know why people don't believe what you do, ask people that don't believe, not other people who believe. Articles like Defending Your Faith: Why Your Friend Really Doesn't Believe make me wonder if they are aimed more at shoring up the believer's faith than converting nonbelievers. After all, you don't really need to "defend your faith" just because you know someone who doesn't believe as you do. (Even if they do offer you delicious cookies!) The basic premise seems to be that belief is like smoking: even if you don't smoke, there's still that second-hand smoke problem. I can only describe that sort of reasoning as . . . odd.



Often we assume that the reason the people we love do not believe the gospel is that they simply need more proof for the veracity of its claims. Yes, proof would be nice. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. We often are prone to think that if the unbeliever could just hear the facts we've heard your "facts" or witness a miracle stop that. if i saw a bona fide miracle, like a guy that had been verifiably dead for days suddenly get up and walk away, I would totally believe. then certainly they would be willing to repent and believe on Christ.



Jesus knew that is not the case.

In fact, Jesus turns it completely around. He taught “If anyone wills to do His [God’s] will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. (John 7:17)

According to Christ, your friend’s willingness to obey God precedes their ability to know the truth about Christ and what he came to reveal. So the problem with unbelief is not the intellect, rather it is a matter of the will. I can't see the truth in the bible unless I believe. Do you suppose the author of this article is completely unaware of how asinine that statement is?



"Hey, I found the secret lair of tiny pink unicorns!"

"Really, where is it?"

"I can't show you unless you already believe the unicorns exist."

[*]

Unbelievers do not believe simply because they are not willing to humble themselves and submit to God’s will. That's it. I'm just not quite humble enough. Not nearly as humble as this asshat. I think we need to revisit the definition of "humble":

adjective, -bler, -blest, verb, -bled, -bling.
–adjective
1. not proud or arrogant; modest: to be humble although successful.

2. having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.: In the presence of so many world-famous writers I felt very humble.

3. low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble origin; a humble home.

4. courteously respectful: In my humble opinion you are wrong.

5. low in height (I'm quite humble, apparently!), level, etc.; small in size: a humble member of the galaxy.

I may or may not be humble, but the writer of this article is not.

Clever and subtle arguments may be employed by your friends, but their intellect is not the real problem. when you're describing "intellect" as a "problem", you're the problem They are smoke screens which they hide behind. no, i'm just freakin' smart. that's it. sorry, can't help it.

That does not mean that we are not to offer reasonable answers for our Christian hope. please define "reasonable" in that context. We are explicitly commanded to do so in the Bible. (2 Peter 3:16&17)

really? here's that passage:

16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position

that is not an explicit command to offer reasonable explanations for Christian hope. do these people think i won't look up any referenced bible verses?

But conversion is not simply agreeing with good arguments and sound reasoning, it consists of a supernatural inward change evidenced by repentance and faith in Christ. I will agree with everything before the comma. Belief cannot be turned off and on, there's no switch to flip, no magic button to press. I bet that won't stop people from acting as if it were that simple. (Ray, are you paying attention?)

Why are unbelievers unwilling? Have you stopped beating your wife yet? It's that sort of question. It assumes something unproven- that unbelievers are unwilling- and goes from there.

There are a few factors mentioned in the Bible as to why unbelievers are unwilling to believe the gospel. perhaps the bible, the holy book of christians, isn't the best authority on unbelievers and their motivations. after all, nothing in there was written by an unbeliever. This is actually an appeal to authority, if you're collecting logical fallacies.

Most people are familiar with the verse that says, “The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." yeah, trust me, all atheists are familiar with that one. it gives christians full reign to call atheists anything they want. This famous verse comes from Psalm 14:1. But the verse does not stop there. The rest of it goes on to describe these fools who deny God. “They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is no one who does good.” That's right, Ghandi did nothing but "abominable works". Didn't do one good thing, ever.

Note the real problem. He is not a fool because he lacks information. The point is that even though he should know better, he is behaving like a fool. so he's not a fool, he is behaving like a fool? hey, guys, we got upgraded! The unbeliever is condemned as a fool because he is immoral. I.AM.NOT.IMMORAL.

Now your unbelieving friends are most likely not ax murderers or bank robbers, child molesters and rapists, maybe. shoplifters for sure. arsonists? possibly. but they are still guilty and condemned. I love how fair yhwh is. child molesters go to heaven, ghandi goes to hell. it's so very fair. i'm starting to think of religion as a really long experiment in Stockholm Syndrome. No man except Jesus Christ has ever perfectly fulfilled the law of God. So what is the standard that God’s law requires? stuff i can't do, apparently.

All of the commandments of God are summarized by Christ. He told us that we must love God and neighbor with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. We do that by perfectly obeying the Ten Commandments. funny, i'm pretty sure that's not what he said.

Matthew 22:34-40

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

nothing at all about the ten commandments. how odd.

But, all have broken God’s law, therefore we all are under its penalty of death.

By virtue of our fallen nature, all people want to be “free” to do their own thing as if God does not exist and did not create them. not my motivation, and no, i don't believe god created me. Man wants to be “as gods” (Gen 3:4), pretending to know good and evil apart from what God has revealed. i do not want to be a god. it sounds obnoxiously time consuming, for one thing. The fool wants to set his own rules and act as if there will be no judgment of his life by a Holy God when he dies. there won't be. relax.

Miracles?

Sometimes we believe that if God would just dramatically intervene or answer some unbeliever’s prayer that the person will then throw up their hands in surrender to God. This too is simply not the case. yeah, actually it is. if i prayed for a ham sandwich, and a ham sandwich suddenly appeared before me, you'd better believe I'd believe.

Jesus had to rebuke the Jews of his day because they should have believed on him, but did not. that says something a little different to me than it does to the writer of the article. you'll see why in a minute. Imagine the incredible things they saw happening in Christ’s ministry. The sick were healed, demons were cast out and the dead were raised. A few of the Jews did believe, but most did not. Even though they ought to have believed, no amount of miracles could overcome their willful, unbelieving hearts. this says to me that there were no miracles, or simply the rumors of miracles was not enough to sway everyone. think about it. someone comes up to you and says, "This Jesus guy totally healed a leper. No more leprosy, just like that!" (snaps finger). I bet you'd want some proof, wouldn't you? I would.

In fact, Jesus taught, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead." (Luke 16:31) People do not need a miracle to convince them, even one as dramatic as Christ’s resurrection. If they are hard hearted and unwilling to submit to God they will just ignore or rationalize a miracle. Did I see the resurrection? Is there historical proof, other than the bible, of the resurrection? no.

So we can see one major reason why people are unwilling to believe is because they love their sin and “freedom” more than they love God. no, i don't believe in god. therefore, my love of god doesn't freakin' exist. and i don't love sin. jesus does not make you better than me. This is precisely what Jesus was getting at when he explained why the world rejected him. uh huh. so if i say that rejecting me as god makes you sinful and evil, does it? what if i get other people to write a really long book about it?

“And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” John 3:19 blahblahblah bible quote.