Nilda Whitsitt's blog ::... started, after the W.M.D. had failed...this July 14, 2003, conversation in December 2005.) Was that... once more, will not take America’s mind off the politics of mass...
It seems that every time I log on to Associated Content to see what's new in the world of independent media people are arguing about religion, morality and government. You have to be blind not to see that there is a war going on in America over religion's role in public life. What is the nature of this war? What is at issue? Are the battle lines as simple as Christians versus everyone else? This article will be an attempt to address some of these issues. Here is the obligatory disclaimer. This is opinionated article about religion and thus will be controversial and subjective, though I will try to be as objective as I can. Also, do not think that I am stupid or bigoted-when I say "Christians" I do not mean all believers in Christ but simply the group in aggregate in America. I do not want to be guilty of generalizing so when I say "Christians" realize that I mean most or some "Christians." The most simplistic view of the argument would be to say that there are the faithful and those who hate religion. Certainly, if you type in the world "Christian" into the AC search bar you will find in the comments of almost any article people who bash religion itself as irrational and foolish. There are those few who have an allergy to the mere mention of God and religion. Such comments do not, however, form the majority of negative criticism leveled at Christians on the internet. In their defense you do not often find Christians on the web trying to mindlessly convert everyone to their faith or claiming that their antagonists are going to burn in hellfire for eternity either. For the most part the religious argument in America is a legal, political and moral one and hinges on the language of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Created and ratified in 1791, the First Amendment might just be the most comprehensive assertion of freedom ever made and ratified by any government in human history. There are two clauses within the amendment that respect religion. The first clause is the "establishment clause," which says basically that the government cannot create or prefer a religion to other religions or to non-belief. In the most explicit sense there can be no state religion or legal establishment of religious laws. Thus the Ten Commandments cannot be made into law, neither can the Islamic Shariah nor the precepts of Confucius. The second clause is the "free exercise" clause. What this means is that people should have the freedom to practice their religion so long as such practice does not interfere with freedom and rights of others. By this standard, each peaceful religion is tolerated equally in the United States. Within the confines of your own home or religious temple you can worship as you see fit. You can further use your right to free speech to try to convert other people, create religious schools, do missionary work and pray in public. The debate over religion in public typically hinges not on the acceptability of personal prayer spoken to oneself or among family and friends, but the legality of using time, media or money supplied by the government or the general public to express religious sentiment. In the recent debate on the AC article, "Thank God for a Bold Rodeo Cowboy and a High School Valedictorian," by Venice Kichura, a number of people made impassioned comments that more or less summarized the two sides of this debate. Former New Mexican wrote - I'm a Christian. I will pray, in public, in private, anytime I choose. That's because my prayers have a direct line with God. James Dabbagian wrote - Funny, the Constitution says we are endowed by our Creator with rights. So who's the creator? Maybe it's Zeus, god of thunder or maybe Isis, Egyptian goddess of the sun...I don't remember seeing the word Jesus or Christ in the Constitution. Vanessa Halin wrote - This is the best article I've read yet! It's about time someone pointed out the world that this country is based on religion...Christian religion. Sandy Knauer wrote - I believe this cry for public prayer is a sad sign of little faith. Those who KNOW they have a constant connection with God would not have to make public displays or seek constant validation from others. They would know that their God knows how they live their lives and what they carry in their hearts. At issue were the words of a rodeo cowboy that explicitly referenced Jesus Christ and required a moment of everyone's time for silent prayer. It elicited over 90 comments in less than a week (a religious war indeed). Christians, in discussing this contentious article, repeatedly asked why, if a prayer is not hurting anyone and is positive, it is deemed offensive by some people. In answer I and many others asserted that any prayer in a public venue is acceptable if spoken to oneself or informally organized but not appropriate if it uses everyone's time, is transmitted over a loudspeaker or some other broadcast medium and singles out non-believers who are forced to uphold their own beliefs by their silence. I believe it is difficult for some Christians to understand that while many teachings of Christ are universal and positive, the mention of God and Christ-their existence, nature and dominion over human beings-in any context is offensive to some people. Such people do not want to engage in a theological debate or assert their own views in public but merely want a secular silence when trying to sit and enjoy a baseball game. Christians do experience considerable criticism and opposition in America. One reason for the antagonism is that Christians are provocative in the expression of their religion while other groups are not. Christians are attacked in America because only they seek to express their religious beliefs in public, increasingly in inappropriate settings. They want to proclaim their faith to all and sundry while Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and people of many other faiths do not actively seek out situations to pray when to do so might be offensive to others who are present. Christians also feel the right criticize people's life style choices and censor what Americans see and hear on TV, radio and videogames all based on their religious convictions. Why is this so insulting to secular Americans? Firstly, because secularists use logic to defend their actions and ideas instead of unanswerable scripture. In criticizing Amy McGowan's AC article, "Gay Marriage and Why This Christian Supports It," for example, a user named "Jesus Loves" quoted the books of Matthew, Corinthians, Revelations, Romans and James, as if these passages were, in and of themselves logical proofs of his point that gay marriage and homosexuality are immoral. In criticism of the same article user "Wake Up Christians" repeatedly referenced the Bible in backing up his LEGAL gay marriage ban arguments. Logical secularists object to scriptural arguments because they have no basis in logic, law or fact. Christians quote such passages as a short cut around thinking of logical and legal support for their positions. No other group in America seeks to legislate how everyone else lives as consistently as Christians. Muslims rarely ask to open town council meetings with a reading from the Koran. I have yet to go to a little league game where a coach organized a Jewish prayer that his players could participate in if they wanted to but if they didn't they would just have to wait in the corner quietly and respectfully until the prayer was completed. Buddhists do not tell homosexuals that they are sinners or chant outside abortion clinics. Christians impose on other Americans in ways they would never tolerate from other groups. For example recently Congressman Keith Ellison became the first Muslim sworn in on the Koran and everyone wondered if Ellison would be allowed to swear in on anything other than a Bible. Christianity is a provocative religion. From its inception it has sought to spread the "Good News" all over the world and convert everyone in its path. Christians were persecuted by the Romans in ways that Jews were not because Christians publicly declared the pagan beliefs of the Romans to be evil. Upon their ascension as the state religion Christians used their political power to annihilate all forms of polytheism and waged endless and violent war among their own sects and frequently against Jews and Muslims throughout recorded history. I spent hours in anthropology lectures in college learning about how Christian missionary work has convinced native children around the world to abandon their ancestral beliefs as heathen superstition. I do not argue the rectitude of Christian actions in these historic cases, but no one can deny that Christianity is a religion of the world that seeks followers and to engage people in a public discourse about God. Islam is also such a religion but Islam is not the majority religion of the United States and therefore most Muslims in America worship privately, respecting the mixed company of their fellow Americans. Christianity, however, is the majority religion and does not similarly respect other religions through public silence about questions of eternity. Christians seek such moments out and thus arouse the ire of secular Americans. 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 above statement was made by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group called the Danbury Baptists. The statement made while Jefferson was president, was a private statement of interpretation of the First Amendment and thus had no legal authority. Yet this statement has become the byword for freedom of religion debates in America. The Supreme Court has frequently used the term in rendering decisions about religious freedom. In the judicial activism of the past 50 years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly gone back to "Separation of Church and State" in its decisions against public funding or support of religious activity. Some religions, particularly some sects of Islam, find religion is not just a spiritual but also a religious institution. Islamic fundamentalists frequently and openly declare their intentions to place Shariah law as the governing principle over anyone that comes under their power, regardless of that person's religious convictions. Some Christian groups such as the Christian Coalition also claim a desire to explicitly establish Christian ethical principle as law in the United States. Everyone else in America feels that there should be some separation but differs on its nature and degree. Some people want freedom of religion while others want freedom FROM religion. Thus what is at issue in most religious debates in the United States is the degree to which religion should be expressed in public life. Christians have been increasingly vocal and active politically as they perceive a slide in America's level of morality. Some Christians believe the moral skid stems from the disappearance of Christ, Christian ethics and worship from public life. Many Christians vote Republican because as a whole the Republican Party has made a show of supporting Christian morality in legal debates. Thus most Republicans, particularly the most conservative, oppose gay marriage and rights, abortion and stem cell research from all but existing stem cell lines. Christians vote for politicians based on their code of morality and thus, politicians are increasingly becoming vocal supporters of Christians and Christian ethics in legislation. The presidential election of 2004 was a veritable God-fest as all politicians scrambled to profess their faith in some deity. The reason for this trend is that when George W. Bush was elected in 2000 56% of Christians voted for him and 63% in 2004. Increasingly in the America the Christian, conservative and Republican movements march in locked step. Opposing this highly successful and well organized party is a loose coalition of various liberal factions who are not nearly as organized, whose voters are not nearly as motivated and whose platform of beliefs and political agendas is one of opposition to the right-wing agenda-not a well defined agenda of its own. Thus until the midterm elections of 2006 when dissatisfaction over the War in Iraq finally won enough moderate votes away from the Republican Party, this right wing conglomeration won each major political contest since 2000. With a Republican Congress, President and three new conservative appointees to the Supreme Court, the Christian conservative agenda has been repeatedly asserted in America. Politicians now actively discuss God in their speeches. Abortion rights are being eroded in the states and talk of overturning Roe versus Wade is once again taken seriously. Stem cell bills are vetoed one after another by a Born Again President upholding his Christian moral convictions. Gay marriage bans are proposed as Constitutional amendments. I would like to say that in the above statement I did not express a personal opinion. Some of you readers might read the above paragraph with pride as a source of achievement and progress while others would look upon said developments in horror. Whichever side you choose, it is abundantly clear that America is completely polarized into a Christian conservative camp and a secular and liberal camp. While there may be religious liberals and secular conservatives, the passionate nature of the debate and its high stakes has forced everyone to take a side. Christians face negative criticism because they are provocative in the public expression of their religion. They accurately perceive a slide in American moral values and want to do something about it and thus vote for a vocally Christian and morality-centered Republican Party that places the Christian political agenda at its heart. Christians are rightfully concerned about America's moral future but they are wrong in believing that it is the loss of God in the public sphere that is responsible for the moral decay. Morality is not the exclusive domain of Christianity or religion at large. There might be a correlation between the prevalence of non-believers and moral decline, but this does not indicate causation. I believe that morality can be a secular virtue as well as a religious one. Ayn Rand, from her atheist and objectivist view point, viewed morality as the making of choices. Morality cannot exist, in fact, without human freedom. Forced acts of good or evil, like killing in self-defense or giving to charity as a court ordered punitive damage do not count as moral actions. (This need for freedom in morality is at the heart of atheist and agnostic rejection of original sin.) In a moral choice Ayn Rand states that what benefits a rational human being, thus not at the expense of others, is the "good" and what harms a rational individual or a rational society as a whole is "evil." Ayn Rand's view was that human beings, by the very biological and psychological nature of their make up require certain freedoms to thrive. These freedoms, if they do not come at the expense of other human beings, are basic human rights and are not a government's or religion's gift to bestow upon mankind. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While the Declaration of Independence has no binding authority other than making the United States an independent nation, these words have been a mission statement for the United States for two and a half centuries. Coupled with the First Amendment, in fact, these words are the very soul of what America is and stands for. The use of the words "Creator" is one of the lynch-pins of the Christian argument that America is a Christian nation. There are, however ways to reconcile Ayn Rand's atheist view with Jefferson's. Jefferson was a deist, as were many other founding fathers. Deism basically is a creed of intelligent design in which God created the universe and is a fount of all goodness and morality. Deists did not, however, necessarily believe in the divine nature of Christ. Jefferson's principle qualms with Christianity were its insistence on mysteries and miracles, which Jefferson found antithetical to Enlightenment principles of science and rationality. In the Declaration "Creator" refers simply to whatever gave rise to human beings. The creator could be the God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam. The creator, however, could just as easily be nature or evolution. Neither Ayn Rand nor Thomas Jefferson would delve into the nature of the creator but on the following principles they both agree. Man needs certain things to survive. Man needs his life. Life is the ultimate good-your means to all other goods and experiences that you might have. Without your life you are, quite literally, nothing. Man needs to work and keep the fruits of his labor. The biological requirements of food, water and shelter require a person to work in order to attain these most fundamental of needs. Humans are also transcendent beings, not merely content with biological survival. They need a sense of psychological and physical well-being. In short, they need happiness. Happiness cannot be bestowed by anyone, however, nor can it be defined by anyone but the individual. In so far as his or her happiness does no harm to anyone else in a rational sense, a person is entitled to pursue their happiness, not necessarily to achieve it. Freedom is a precondition of happiness and survival. The human mind cannot be harnessed like a beast of burden and therefore requires freedom to achieve its utmost potential. I don't believe that theists or non-theists can claim victory based on Jefferson's words. The term "Creator" is far too general to mean God or nature. Jefferson deliberately left the term ambiguous. Jefferson, a believer in a generic logical and benevolent God and Ayn Rand, an avowed atheist, are in general consensus, however, that whoever made him, man has certain conditions to be met in order to thrive. The rational means to attain these conditions are what we call rights. Morality, according to Rand, hinges upon these rights and the decisions a human makes in exercising them to attain his or her own success. Thus stealing is wrong because you cannot deprive another person of their honest means of survival. Murder is wrong because we all want to live. Each one of us shudders in reaction to thought of dying by another's will. We do not know what embedded needs and their accompanying rights in man's biological and psychological nature. God very well might have made man the limited organism he is or perhaps evolution, chemistry and physics chose our needs for us. Christians often argue that our own moral sense is a proof that God exists. I would counter, however, that our moral compass, while tangible, may only be a sense of how our actions affect others based on our innate understanding of human nature and its limitations. There are other, less obvious moral subtleties, that are harder to justify logically, but that can be justified. Adultery, for example, is not as obvious a moral wrong as is murder. Christians claim that adultery is wrong because God said so in the Ten Commandments. If you take a peek at other cultures that evolved in absence of Christianity and Judaism, a similar prohibition is common, however. There are two sources for adultery's "wrongness." One is instinctive. All male courtship rituals and competitions revolve around a male proving his superior DNA and passing it on at the expense of other males. Thus all men want to exclusively father children with a desirable woman at the expense of other men. Animals fight and kill one another on this score throughout nature. The other argument against adultery is a social one. The family is the base unit of society. A stable family produces well adjusted children who grow up to be productive adults that contribute to society and follow its rules. Thus humans view as immoral anything that destabilizes the family: fornication because it leads to pregnancy without a stable family unit in which to have and raise the child, adultery because it can destroy a family. The bottom line of this long winded argument is that morality is not exclusive to the religious. There are very many moral people who do not believe in God. I try to act according to my own strict moral compass. I choose the good because I respect myself and others and I don't want to hurt anyone. I do so freely and without any desire for cosmic reward (heaven) or desire to avoid punishment (hell). I do believe that religion can be a powerful reinforcement, however, and is socially quite useful on these grounds. Religion, through its use of heaven and hell can get less enlightened individuals to toe the line morally, when they cannot be trusted to do so without such social constraint. Most Christian moral precepts are not debated by secularists because secularists are capable of morality without a concept of God and hold many of the same precepts. The moral principles that are argued are theistic prohibitions and precepts that have little or no logical basis. For examples there is no logical necessity to worship God-one god or many gods. There is also no conclusive logical reason why homosexuality or sodomy is wrong. One could make the argument that two men can not be productive heads of families when they are having sex with each other. I would just like to point out, however, that there are countless families in America that have been destroyed by gay men trying to deny what they are and trying to have families, only to scandalously leave them after "coming out." I personally know of several such cases. A gay man should not be forced to have a heterosexual life, which for that man and his wife would be a lie. In addition, there is no harm to a TANGIBLE third party in consensual gay relationships. In moral questions like homosexuality and sodomy Christians arouse the greatest criticism from secular America because they retreat to the Bible for evidence in place of what they cannot logically argue. They say that "marriage should be between a man and a woman" without considering just how racist and presumptuous the word "should" is in that sentence. They forget that for 30 percent of America the Bible is just a book-a collection of history and hearsay from millennia ago. Christians violate separation of Church and State by advocating limits on gay rights based on Christian doctrine. When they do so by protest, they are exercising their right to free speech but when they elect politicians specifically to create Christian-inspired gay marriage bans, it crosses the constitutional line and secularists fight back. The morality of Christian doctrine is not universally accepted as moral and therefore to make it American law is to make it Christian law, which violates the establishment clause. Of course the Constitution will not stand up for itself, that is the job the Supreme Court-a body which George Bush has subverted by finding three of the most Christian oriented conservatives he could to sit as judges for life. The remainder of Christian-centered controversy in America revolves on the definition of life. Christians regard all forms of human tissue as sacred. Masturbation is a sin because "man's seed is not to be spilled in vain." From the moment of conception, according to Christians, a zygote is a human life. At each stage of embryonic development a fetus and baby are considered alive. Thus abortion at any stage and even birth control are the target of Christian protest. I have never felt that I could confidently weigh in on abortion-men rarely do. The general consensus among secular America, however, is that at the point when a nervous system develops, an embryo becomes a human being. Some pro-choice extremists argue that abortion should be legal right up to the point past which it becomes murder-birth itself. This is not something that I can resolve. I agree with the consensus-I cannot take a collection of undifferentiated cells seriously as a human life. I find that latter stage abortions are unnecessarily and wantonly cruel procedures that could be avoided. Just about everyone I know also believes that abortion should never be considered a means of birth control. Late term abortions should only be an option if a mother's life is in danger and in cases of rape and incest. While I have my moral qualms about abortion, I have never been able to get past the notion that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is a gross violation of her civil liberty. I also believe, if we have to choose between mother and baby, as a living, adult human being who has ties to the world, a mother's life means more than an unborn child's. I feel like Solomon with his knife saying that-most people do. Abortion, stem cells and the like are not easy issues to resolve. I have a certain sympathy as a compassionate human being with the largely Christian pro-life movement. Once again, however, I do not condone allowing Christian doctrine to decide a legal matter in the United States. Perhaps in the end abortion should be put to referendum but to vote for or against it based on Christian doctrine violates separation of Church and state. In summary, Christians view themselves as under attack by secular America. While it is true that there is a considerable debate between Christians and secularists in America, Christians bring a great deal of the fight on themselves by provocatively trying to proclaim their religious beliefs while people of other faiths seek only silence on religious questions in the public sphere. Christians also are attempting to legislate their morality as the basis of American law, when not all Americans see morality from the Christian perspective-particularly in matters of gay rights, abortion and stem cell research. Christians are vocal and energetic in their political campaigning to achieve these agendas because they view the downward moral slide of American values as the direct result of the disappearance of religion from public life. I do not agree with this view because morality is not the exclusive domain of religion but rather a logical series of precepts based on human nature, which may or may not have been created by God. Lastly I would propose what I really believe is destroying morality in America. Consumerism in America has people convinced that they need to own a certain amount of possessions and have a certain amount of money to be successful. This perception is fueled by the media's portrayal of celebrity lifestyle, the artificial glamour of television shows and a relentless torrent of advertising. The higher standard of living and rampant consumption of Americans has created tremendous economic demand that has raised the cost of living. Americans have to work more to live what they view as acceptable lives. Working more means Americans spend less time with their children and what time they do spend is the scrap at the end of a work day when parents are tired and preoccupied. This lack of time and attention means that children are not properly supervised, instructed or disciplined by parents who simply buy things to placate them. Schools are forced to take up the slack but naturally are inadequate to the task. Kids are thus poorly behaved because they are not disciplined, poorly educated because their parents do not help them with school work or properly instill in them the importance of a good education and poorly nourished because parents with no time buy convenience food and take out rather than monitor their children's intake of nutrition. I believe that this chain of events is responsible for the decay of morality in America. American children are cynical, disrespectful, selfish, overweight and undereducated. It's their parents' fault. American society is laid waste because we place too much value in things and not enough in people. We value human beings based on their bank accounts and not on their virtue and civic responsibility. Regardless of its propriety, religion in the public sphere is not going to solve this problem. Even if the Christian coalition had its entire political agenda voted into law and America became a Christian theocracy, it would still not correct the damage of inadequate parenting. Jesus Christ might provide fine examples on how to live life, but his influence cannot counteract the effects of parents who abdicate their responsibilities. Christians and atheists, if you want to fix America, go home and spend some time with your kids and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live. |
Image of w t c attack in america
w t c attack in america Image 1
w t c attack in america Image 2
w t c attack in america Image 3
w t c attack in america Image 4
w t c attack in america Image 5
Related blog with w t c attack in america
- rougeknights.blogspot.com/...take in orphans; it wasn't a legal situation that needed...Journeycake was buried in our Bratcher Cemetery, which ... in the Bratcher C[emetery]... and reinterred...
- adeimantus.blogspot.com/...compassionate, re-elect George W. Bush if I am not ...the US, would never conspire in any way to attack our mutual enemy because, as... with which to attack America and Iraq were the...
- nastyletterstocrookedpoliticians.blogspot.com/...Englishman of the same name. Don't you wish you could have something...have taken all the money in the treasuries of our...Country : : A Memoir of Life in George W Bush's America.
- mgpaquin.blogspot.com/... started, after the W.M.D. had failed...this July 14, 2003, conversation in December 2005.) Was that... once more, will not take America’s mind off the politics of mass...
- warintel.blogspot.com/...your agents in the Algerian army..., and to attack them with...new lesson from the 'American book of democracy...against them. (c)You are the...American News isn't. (d)As for the war...
- belmontclub.blogspot.com/... to the attacks? Bernard Lewis... that Americans have gone.... They can’t take ...he was in contact perfectly...Washington, or D.C., or the Beltway...
- rougeknights.blogspot.com/... to his writings. In America the system appeared in its classic form in the notes...and Margaret Macdonald. Since Margaret wasn't Jewish, LaHaye sees ...
- jagmire.blogspot.com/...report here again CINC George H.W. Bush’s krooked kourt-martial...the rape of my name. For the American people, pass the word and speak...for meth money or the commander in chief’s ordering command...
- theunitedstatesofmonsters.blogspot.com/...with Iran is possible. (c) If the US troops...but most likely this will result in a uncontrolled US nuclear ... in defense than US in attack. Anything could (and would) happen...
- ibloga.blogspot.com/...B 28%, and Company C 14%. The filters...at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco. This is AT&T’s regional ...—of all Americans. Phone calls...
W T C Attack In America - Blog Homepage Results
...February 2012 S M T W T F S « Jan...Counterjihad! Al Jazeera American Conservative American Perspective...Atlas Shrugs Attack Cartoons... Defeat Obama in 2012 FactCheck.org Fire...
...Akismet April 2010 M T W T F S S « Mar 1... - Tip of the Spear in Youngstown, Ohio Revitalization July...other boom towns in America contributed its...
...the Clinton administration’s National Security Council in 1995 as an adviser on nonproliferation. ...Global Security and Sustainability, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (2005); Researcher, International Institute...
Related Video with w t c attack in america
w t c attack in america Video 1
w t c attack in america Video 2
w t c attack in america Video 3
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기