The founders of our nation believed that all Americans should have the right to worship according to their own beliefs, or not to worship at all. So strong was their commitment to religious freedom that they enshrined it in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This constitutional guarantee is often known as the "first freedom."
Religion is a deeply personal matter. Americans must be free to practice their religion without coercion. Government exists to provide for the general well-being of all people, and its workings must be independent of specific religious doctrines. Simply put, there must be a separation of church and state.
If we do not stand together as a nation, we stand to lose this fundamental freedom.
We, the undersigned, call upon elected and appointed officials to join us in reaffirming America's religious freedom by demonstrating a commitment to the following:
- Every American should have the right to make personal decisions -- about family life, reproductive health, end of life care and other matters of personal conscience.
- American tax dollars should not go to charities that discriminate in hiring based on religious belief or that promote a particular religious faith as a requirement for receiving services.
- Political candidates should not be endorsed or opposed by houses of worship.
- Public schools should teach with academic integrity and without the promotion of religious preference or belief.
- Decisions about scientific and health policies should be based on the best available scientific data, not on religious doctrine.
We join together, as the most diverse nation in the world, to commit ourselves to defending and preserving this freedom.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 4
AND, OF COURSE, THERE'S THE ANALYTICALLY TRICKY PUZZLE OF THE DOCTRINE OF "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" TO VERY SIMPLY DEMYSTIFY HERE, SINCE IT IS ONE OF THE MOST MISUNDERSTOOD AND ABUSED SUBJECTS, ON BOTH SIDES, WHICH WAS EVER STRUCTURALLY PRIMED FOR BEING AS INHERENTLY, RATIONALLY INDISPENSABLE, IN ITS TRUE MEANING, AS IT IS CAPABLE OF FALSIFYINGLY AND DESTRUCTIVELY CUTTING, AGAIN, EITHER WAY! WHEN "GNATS" ARE "STRAINED" WITH ISSUES SUCH AS SAYING A PRAYER IN A PUBLIC PLACE, OR REMOVING A COURTHOUSE SHRINE, TO THE SACRILEGIOUS "SWALLOWING" OF "CAMELS" SUCH AS THE ONE BELOW (MATTHEW 23:24)?
WHEN IT'S ENDLESSLY, CIRCULARLY, JACTITATORILY, THUS INSOLUBLY (EVEN, FOR THAT MATTER, IN ITSELF) DEBATED, AS TO WHETHER GOD BELONGS EITHER "IN" OR "OUT," THE THIRD AND ONLY CORRECT ALTERNATIVE IS TOTALLY OVERLOOKED; JUST AS DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR'S, POINT WAS NOT, AS IS COMMONLY ASSUMED, THAT THE RACIALLY AND ECONOMICALLY DISPOSSESSED BE SIMPLY "IN" (PARTICULARLY AS THE MOST TOKENLY, MYSTIFYINGLY PROPAGANDISTIC "ULTRA-SUCCESS STORIES"), RATHER THAN "OUT!" FOR ONE THING, THE "SACRED" IS INHERENTLY INSEPARABLE IN ITS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE "SECULAR," AS THE JUDICIAL INDISPENSABLY SERVES TO UNITE THEM!
THE POINT IS, NOT TO KEEP GOD OUT, BUT RATHER TO FIT HIM IN, AS ACCURATELY, SYSTEMATICALLY, COMPREHENSIVELY AS POSSIBLE! AND THE FIRST ABSOLUTELY INDISPENSABLE STEP, HERE, IS TO FORMALLY, OFFICIALLY, TECHNICALLY, AND RIGIDLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE VERY OPPOSITE OF THE VATICANLY "INFALLIBLE" PATTERN FROM WHICH THE ORIGINAL IMMIGRANTS HAD FLED, BUT WITH A SCRIPTURALLY, PHILOSOPHICALLY, AMBIGUOUSLY MUDDLED MISUNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHAT TO ESTABLISH IN ITS PLACE! IN THIS CASE, THE OPPOSITE OF INFALLIBLE IS, OF COURSE, FALLIBLE.
THE STATE IS OBLIGATED TO GOD, AND EVEN DIVINELY ORDAINED, AS IT IS, WITH ALL ITS CURRENT IMPERFECTIONS, ON ITS VERY FACE, TO BE THERE; IF ONLY IN THE VERY CHARACTERISTICALLY IMPERFECT SENSE PONTIUS PILATE HAD NEVERTHELESS BEEN PERMITTED TO BE (JOHN 19:9-11), UNTIL HE WAS FINALLY NO MORE; DUE TO WHATEVER FORM AND BY WHATEVER MEANS NO LESS DIVINELY ORDAINED TO REPLACE HIM, AND WITH THE PROOF OF SUCH BEING CONFIRMED IN THE VERY CONCRETELY AND IRRESISTIBLY PRAGMATIC UNFOLDING OF THE HISTORICALLY AND PROPHETICALLY TELEOLOGICAL PATTERNING ITSELF! OR, IN THE WORDS OF LEIBNIZ, IT'S THE DIFFERENCE, HERE, BETWEEN THE {PERFECT} WILL OF GOD DETERMINING THE OUTCOME, AND THE {PERMISSIVE} WILL OF GOD BEING DETERMINED BY THE OUTCOME.
BUT THE REAL GOAL, THE HIGHEST IDEAL, AS PER MAN'S OWN RESPONSIBILITY (AND NOT MERELY "PRE-DETERMINED PASSIVITY") IN THE BARGAIN, IS TO STRIVE FOR AS PERFECT-AN-EXPRESSION AS POSSIBLE, THROUGH THE STATE, OF GOD'S WILL! HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO THE CLAIM OF THE PAPACY, EVEN OR RATHER EXCLUSIVELY REGARDING ITSELF, THERE IS--NO NECESSARY CONNECTION--BETWEEN ANY HUMAN GOVERNMENT AS IT ACTUALLY IS--REGARDLESS OF HOW "RELIGIOUSLY" ALTHOUGH CERTAINLY ANYTHING BUT SCRIPTURALLY "INFALLIBLE" (II THESSALONIANS 2:1-8) IT CLAIMS TO BE--AND AS IT OBJECTIVELY OUGHT TO BE!
AGAIN, CHURCH AND STATE ARE "SEPARATE," NOT BECAUSE THERE IS NO PLACE FOR THEIR INVOLVEMENT WITH ONE-ANOTHER (QUITE INHERENTLY TO THE CONTRARY!), BUT ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT THE KIND OF CONNECTION WHICH OBJECTIVELY SHOULD BE THE ACTUAL CASE IS--NOT NECESSARILY--OR EVEN PREDOMINANTLY--THE ACTUAL CASE AT ALL!--JUST AS THERE IS NO FORMALLY THEORETICAL PROVISION FOR STRIVING TO MAKE SUCH THE CASE, IF THE STATE IS NO LESS TECHNICALLY DEFINED AS BEING "INHERENTLY INFALLIBLE" AS IT IS, AND WITH THE "PROOF" OF ITS CLAIM BEING FOUND--IN REVELATION 13:4!!!
THIS IS THE VERY "PROOF" WHICH SCRIPTURE ITSELF SAYS NOT TO GO BY, AND YET THE VERY ONE INVOKED BY ROMAN CATHOLICISM OVER THE CENTURIES! THOSE WHO LOVE TO QUOTE THE APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL (ROMANS 13) (I PETER 2:13-25), IN DEFENSE OF THE VERY SPIRIT OF STATE WORSHIP (BUT, OF COURSE, AND, THUS, EVEN MORE RHETORICALLY, MYSTIFYINGLY "SPEAKING," WITHOUT "CALLING" IT THAT!!!), CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT THE SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES IN QUESTION ARE OUTLINING THE RESPONSIBILITIES, EVEN OF KINGS, UNTO HIM!!! NOTE THAT AGAIN!!! IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF KINGS WHICH ARE BEING OUTLINED--AND NOT THEIR SUPPOSED "INFALLIBILITIES!"
NONE OF THE KINGS AND PRINCES OF THIS WORLD EMBODY "INFALLIBLE GUARANTEES," IN THE SENSE POPULARLY, RELIGIOUSLY MISINTERPRETED (AT LEAST, QUITE INCOHERENTLY, SELF-CONTRADICTORILY, SUBJECTIVELY, HYPOCRITICALLY ENOUGH, IN THE NAMES OF THEIR OWN RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS ALONE, OR EVEN, FOR THAT MATTER, RELIGIOUS "DENOMINATIONS," I CORINTHIANS 3), THAT THEY WILL PERFECTLY FULFILL THESE RESPONSIBILITIES! AND, OF COURSE, EVEN THE OBEDIENCE TO THESE ENTITIES SCRIPTURALLY OUTLINED, MUST BE TEMPERED WITH A MOST LITERALLY VITAL UNDERSTANDING AND APPLICATION OF--ACTS 5:29--IN CASE OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE!
THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE CURRENTLY ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" REALLY HAS NO PLACE, AND WAS NEVER MEANT, BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS, TO HAVE ANY PLACE, WITHIN THE FORMAL CONTEXT OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY OR LAW. YET, TO THE CONTRARY, MINUS THE REAL MEANING OF THIS DOCTRINE, WHICH IS UNMISTAKABLY AND LITERALLY INSCRIBED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM THE MORE CLASSICALLY ROMAN CATHOLIC PARADIGM, SAVE THE ONLY THING STRUCTURALLY REMAINING, NAMELY, AN OTHERWISE ARBITRARILY "SECULAR" RULE BY THE MAJORITY.
THE CONSTITUTION, THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, WAS NOT DESIGNED IN THE SPIRIT OF A MERELY INVENTED SET OF RULES, WITH THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY, ALONE, OR EVEN PRIMARILY AND DECISIVELY, AS WELL AS ARBITRARILY, SERVING TO DETERMINE WHAT THESE RULES SHALL BE. IT WAS RATHER CONCEIVED IN THE SPIRIT OF A DISCOVERY OF "NATURAL LAWS" WHICH ARE, IN THEMSELVES, INALTERABLY WHAT THEY ARE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT EVEN THE MOST OVERWHELMING MAJORITY MIGHT HAVE TO SAY TO THE CONTRARY. THESE "NATURAL LAWS" ARE PHYSICAL, WHEN VIEWED IN TERMS OF MERELY FACTUAL CAUSES AND EFFECTS. BUT THEY ARE ALSO--VIOLATABLE MORAL OBLIGATIONS.
IN THE LATTER SENSE, OF COURSE, THEY CAN PHILOSOPHICALLY, COHERENTLY HAVE NO MEANING, IN THEMSELVES, AS CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES, IN THE ABSENCE OF A LAWGIVER; FOR, OTHERWISE, MINUS ANY GENUINELY AND DIVINELY BINDING AUTHORITY, THE ONLY IDEALISTICALLY, SACREDLY MORAL IMPERATIVES POSSIBLY LEFT, IF ONE CAN EVEN BEAR IN ALL GOOD CONSCIENCE TO CALL THEM THAT, ARE THOSE WHICH PEOPLE ALONE ARBITRARILY DECIDE THEY OUGHT TO FOLLOW. IF, AS SUCH, THEY FREELY CHOOSE NOT TO CARE ABOUT THE PHYSICALLY INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATING "NATURAL LAW," THEN ONLY THE POLICE EXIST TO ARBITRARILY OVERRIDE THEM.
MOREOVER, MERELY TO OBEY THESE "NATURAL LAWS" IN A PREVAILINGLY DEGENERATE SPIRIT OF "ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST," AS A MEANS TO THE END OF "MAKING LIFE WORK," FOR ONESELF ALONE, INTRINSICALLY, AS WELL AS, THEREFORE ALONE, FOR OTHERS, ALSO, BUT INSTRUMENTALLY, AS THOSE UPON WHOSE "PRAGMATICALLY GOOD WILL" YOU DEPEND, DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, FULFILL THE SACREDNESS OF THE MORAL LAW. IN FACT, AS THE SOLE MOTIVATION FOR OBEDIENCE, IT ACTUALLY VIOLATES THE MORAL LAW! THE LAW ALSO WORKS, AS WELL, AND INDEED BY NATURE QUITE OPIMALLY, UNIQUELY, WHEN UNIVERSALLY OBEYED; BUT, MOST IDEALLY, SACREDLY, AS A RESULT, NOT THE CAUSE.
HOWEVER, WHEN EVERYONE IS CONCERNED ONLY ABOUT GOOD BECAUSE HENCEFORTH DIFFERENT AND BETTER RESULTS, ALL CHARACTERISTICALLY WAIT FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO ACT, FOR ANOTHER TO TAKE THE INITIAL RISKS, SO THAT THE CONCERN ALONE WITH GOOD RESULTS DOESN'T EVEN END UP YIELDING THAT MUCH!!! THIS SORDIDLY PREVAILING REALITY ALSO SERVES TO RECONFIRM THE VICTIMIZINGLY SELFISH AND DEGENERATE FORM OF "LIBERALLY PROGRESSIVE HUMANITARIANISM," OR, THAT IS TO SAY, "ALTRUISTIC" HEDONISM IN GENERAL! ABOUT THE ONLY SUCH CREATURES WHO AT ALL AT LEAST APPEAR TO "DEFY" THIS FORMULA ARE THOSE PROFESSIONALLY, THUS SELFISHLY ENGAGED AT THE VANGUARD, IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, BECAUSE IT'S THEIR "JOURNALISTIC" OR OTHER NEVERTHELESS JEALOUSLY WELL-GUARDED BUSINESS. Notice, for example, how BOTH SIDES virtually INSIST upon "PREACHING ONLY TO THE CHOIR," while so very correspondingly and CONSPICUOUSLY-PEDDLING THEIR BOOKS!!! And they're WHINING, NOW, about Bush's determination to TAKE EVEN THE INTERNET AWAY FROM THEM!!!
BUT, THEN, IF OBEDIENCE TO THE MORAL LAW, WHICH, FOR OUR PURPOSES, HERE, FINDS ITS CONTENT IN THE "NATURAL LAW," INHERENTLY YIELDS THE MOST 'WORKABLE" OR "PRAGMATICALLY OPTIMAL" RESULTS, EVEN THOUGH OBEDIENCE FOR THE SOLE SAKE OF THE RESULTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE OBEDIENCE IN THE MOST INTRINSICALLY SACRED SENSE, THEN EXACTLY WHAT DOES CONSTITUTE SUCH OBEDIENCE? AS KANT SO ACCURATELY EXPLAINED, ONE MUST BE MOTIVATED TO OBEY THE LAW SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW, AS SOMETHING SACRED IN ITSELF. THIS SERVES TO DISTINGUISH A PURELY REVERENT SPIRIT, FROM ONE WHICH VIEWS THE LAW AS MERELY A UTILITARIAN MEANS TO AN END.
WHEN I DESCRIBE EVEN OBEDIENCE TO THE "NATURAL LAW" ITSELF AS BEING ARBITRARY, I DO NOT MEAN SUCH IN THE STRICTLY OPERATIONAL SENSE OF THE TERM, IN WHICH OBEDIENCE TO IT, FROM A RATIONALLY SOUND MIND, IN TERMS OF THE RESULTS EXPECTED, IS ANYTHING BUT ARBITRARY. EVEN SUCH OPERATIONALLY WELL-DIRECTED OBEDIENCE IS ARBITRARY, BUT ONLY IN THE SENSE OF BEING MOTIVATIONALLY REGARDED, IN THE PROCESS, AS AN OPTION, RATHER THAN AN IMPERATIVE; OR, THAT IS TO SAY, AS SOMETHING WHICH FAILS TO BE A MORAL DUTY IN PRECISELY THE SENSE THAT A STRICTLY INDIVIDUAL PENALTY DOES NOT INHERENTLY RESULT FROM ITS VIOLATION.
EVEN THE "DEISTIC NATURALISTS" CAN TALK ABOUT "IDEALISTICALLY SACRED MORAL DUTY" ALL THEY WISH, BUT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A METAPHYSICALLY AND INFALLIBLY BUILT-IN POWER TO ENFORCE SUCH DUTY, VIA THE MOST INEVITABLE IF NOT IMMEDIATE OR EVEN EARTHLY REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS, THEN THE LAW ITSELF, THE CONTENT OF THE IMPERATIVE ON WHICH SUCH INDIVIDUAL DUTY IS BASED, IS INHERENTLY DEPRIVED OF ANY OBJECTIVELY-ROOTED SUBSTANCE. ONE MIGHT ARGUE THAT GOD SET A STRICTLY DEISTIC UNIVERSE IN MOTION, WITH THE REWARDS AND PENALTIES STRUCTURALLY BUILT-IN. BUT SUCH A VIEW DOES NOT SATISFY THE STRICTEST PHILOSOPHICAL DEMAND.
MORAL DUTY IS A STRICTLY INDIVIDUAL RESPOPNSIBILITY, AS NO JUDGMENTS AND DECISIONS ARE BY NATURE EVER ANYTHING BUT INDIVIDUALLY MADE. EVEN THE MOST WIDESPREAD CONSENSUS CANNOT BY NATURE EXIST AT ALL, SAVE AS A COMPOSITE OF FREELY INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS. SINCE IT IS ONLY INDIVIDUALS WHO MAKE DECISIONS, AND ONLY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MOTIVATED IN ANY WAY TO DO SO; THEN IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT, IN THE PRESENCE OF ANYTHING SHORT OF AN ETERNALLY INFALLIBLE GOD, TO HOLD EACH INDIVIDUAL, EACH MORAL DECISION, TO AN INESCAPABLY JUDICIAL ACCOUNTING, IT IS NOTHING BUT EMPTY WORDS TO SPEAK OF INDIVIDUAL MORAL DUTY AT ALL
HOWEVER, IN THE PROCESS, LET US NOT CONFUSE THE INDIVIDUALLY MOTIVATIONAL IDEAL OF "PSYCHOLOGICALLY TRANSCENDING" THE VERY SPIRIT OF OBEDIENCE TO LAW AS AN IMPERATIVE, RATHER THAN AS SOMETHING ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE COMMANDED IN ORDER TO OBEY, WITH AN ELIMINATION OF THE RATIONALLY PHILOSOPHICAL NECESSITY THAT THERE BE METAPHYSICALLY, INFALLIBLY BUILT-IN REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS; JUST AS, FOR THAT MATTER, THE GREATEST IF NOT THE ONLY REAL REWARDS, PARADOXICALLY ENOUGH, ARE BEING ETERNALLY EARNED BY THOSE WHO REVERENTLY FULFILL THEIR DUTY WITH THE ATTITUDE THAT PLEASING GOD CONSTITUTES ITS OWN REWARD!
GOD DOES, OF COURSE, PUNISH COLLECTIVELY, AND JUST AS ARBITRARILY AS ANYTHING ELSE, EVEN TO THE POINT OF VISITING THE SINS OF THE FATHERS UPON THE SONS, UNTO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATIONS. AND THIS, TO BE SURE, IS "NATURAL LAW" IN ACTION. HOWEVER, THE CAUSE AND EFFECT HERE IS NOT JUDICIAL IN THE STRICTEST SENSE, AS CAN ONLY BE THE CASE, AGAIN, WHEN INDIVIDUALS ARE HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR OWN INESCAPABLY FREE DECISIONS AND MOTIVATIONS. IF THIS IS NOT AN INHERENTLY METAPHYSICAL NECESSITY, THEN THE CHRIST, WHO VOLUNTARILY DIED, FOR THE SINS OF EVERY FREELY REPENTANT INDIVIDUAL, DID SO ENTIRELY FOR NOTHING!
THE SAME "LAST JUDGMENT" BILLY GRAHM CONTINUALLY REFERS TO, IS DESCRIBED IN REVELATION 20. THE ONLY OTHER STRUCTURALLY CONCEIVABLE MANNER OF SATISFYING THE ABOVESTATED PHILOSOPHICAL DEMAND, IS VIA "REINCARNATION." BUT THERE SIMPLY IS NO "REINCARNATION," JUST AS THE WORDING OF HEBREWS 9:27 LEAVES NO ROOM FOR ANYTHING BUT THE MOST LOGICALLY INCOHERENT MISINTERPRETATION HERE. MOREOVER, NEITHER IS REVELATION 3:12 A REFERENCE TO "REINCARNATION," BUT RATHER TO THE FACT THAT, AT THE POINT OF REVELATION 12:14-17, NOW SHORTLY TO COME, THE 144,000, AND THE 144,000 ALONE, ARE--PERMANENTLY--HOME--FREE!!!
INDEED, THE AVERAGE "LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE" DOGMATICALLY BOASTS OF NEEDING NO SAVIOR TO JUDICIALLY OPEN THE DOOR INDIVIDUALLY UNTO HIM, WHILE SELF-MASQUERADING HIS "FREELY-CHOSEN HUMANITARIANISM" AS THE "TRUE SPIRIT" OF BEING "ABOVE THE LAW" IN A BIBLICALLY NEW TESTAMENT SENSE; BUT MINUS ANY GENUINELY HUMBLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ITS OBJECTIVELY INHERENT NATURE AS A DUTY IN EITHER CASE, RATHER THAN AS SOMETHING HE IS "FREE" AS "OPPOSED" TO "COMMANDED" TO DO. HIS ONLY REAL CONCERN, LIKE THE "STRICT EPICUREAN" HE CHARACTERISTICALLY IS, IS THE "PIG PHILOSOPHY," THE "PHILOSOPHY SATISFIED," OF "ALTRUISTIC" HEDONISM!!!
OF COURSE, IT IS POSSIBLE, IN THE STRICTEST STRUCTURAL SENSE, FOR SUCH A "LIBERALLY PROGRESSIVE HUMANITARIAN" TO GENUINELY EMBRACE THE SPIRIT OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE; BUT WHILE BEING CHARACTERISTICALLY INCOHERENT, ON A MERELY VERY FORMALLY THEORETICAL LEVEL, IN HIS DEFINITION OF THE NECESSARY METAPHYSICAL CONDITIONS; EVEN WHILE SPEAKING IN TERMS OF THE SOUNDNESS-IN-ITSELF OF AN OBJECTIVELY AND CATEGORICALLY-BINDING CONCEPT OF MORAL DUTY, AND ALSO AT LEAST "INADVERTENTLY," THAT IS, UNBELIEVINGLY, BENEFITTING FROM WHAT AMOUNTS IN-ITSELF TO AN EXISTENTIALLY KANTIAN EQUATION (HE CONCEIVED IT AS A VIABLE SUBSTITUTION, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF REASON ALONE) BETWEEN BEING JUDICIALLY PARDONED FOR ONE'S IMPERFECTIONS DUE TO THE MERITS OF ANOTHER, AND THROUGH THE ATONEMENT OF ONE'S OWN GENUINELY REPENTANT CHANGE OF HEART PER SE. HOWEVER, MY EXPERIENCE WITH SUCH "MERELY INTELLECTUAL" OR "HISTORICALLY-FALSIFYING" ALBEIT OTHERWISE "EXISTENTIALLY AUTHENTIC" LIMITATIONS IN SUCH AN INDIVIDUAL SUGGESTS SOMETHING CHARACTERISTICALLY MUCH LESS REDEEMABLY, DECISIVELY FLATTERING ON HIS BEHALF!
HIS REPUBLICAN PARTY, "CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST" OPPONENTS, ARE, OF COURSE, REALLY ONLY TOO "DEMANDINGLY STOIC" TO SUIT HIM, PARTICULARLY WITH THE KINDS OF "MILITARILY HEROIC SACRIFICES" AS WELL AS "ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY" WHICH THESE "LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES" MERELY QUITE CONVENIENTLY OR "MORALLY" RATHER THAN SELFISHLY AND DECADENTLY ASCERTAIN, ACCURATELY IN EITHER CASE, TO BE MORE SINISTERLY IMMORAL THAN ANYTHING ELSE, IDEALISTICALLY AS WELL AS UTILITARIANLY; SAVE, OF COURSE, TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY AMONG THEM ARE ECONOMICALLY WELL-PRIVILEGED THEMSELVES, WITH EVERYTHING THEY'VE ALONE SO RIGHTFULLY, HONESTLY EARNED AND DESERVE, RATHER THAN NEEDING TO RANCOROUSLY, JEALOUSLY "LIBERATE" FOR THEMSELVES, IN THE FORM OF A VIOLENTLY MARXIST REVOLUTION! IN FACT, THE "RIGHTEOUSLY REPUBLICAN REWARDS" OF SADISTICALLY KILLING "SINNERS" ARE USED AS "PROOF" OF THE "REAL ORIGIN" OF IDEAS LIKE "GOD," ALONG WITH AT LEAST "HIS" CONCEPT OF "DUTY," IN THE "STRICTEST METAPHYSICAL" AND "BLOODLESSLY ABSTRACT" SENSE!
AND, SPEAKING OF "ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY," IT'S PATHETICALLY IRONIC THAT MOST "RIGHT-WING, FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS" WHOLEHEARTEDLY BUY INTO THE TYPICALLY-PERVERTED VERSION OF THE "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" DOCTRINE, FOR THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF AVOIDING THE TAXATION OF CHURCHES. MOREOVER, THEY BASE THEIR ARGUMENT UPON A "RENDERING UNTO CAESAR" DOCTRINE WHICH MAKES INCALCULABLY MORE SENSE BY INVERTING THEIR INTERPRETATION OF IT, SO THAT IT READS AS THEIR DUTY TO PAY THEIR FAIR PORTION OF TAXES, IN EXCHANGE FOR ALL THE PUBLIC SERVICES FROM WHICH THEY LIKEWISE SHARE IN THE COMMON BENEFIT.
PARTICULARLY AS OF LATE, THE "WOLVES IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING" WHO MOST POPULARLY AND CHARACTERISTICALLY PREVAIL, AS THE "HEADS OF THEIR FLOCKS," ARE RAKING IN THE MOST OBSCENELY ASTRONOMICAL SUMS, FROM "FREE LOVE GIFTS," OFTEN ENOUGH, AS FIXED, MANDATORY AMOUNTS, BUT "NOT" IN EXCHANGE FOR SOME "LOVE GIFT" FROM THE "MINISTER," WHICH PROVES, "DE FACTO," TO BE A MOST PROFITABLY CAPITALISTIC TRANSACTION FOR HIM! AND, AS ONE UNDERSTANDABLY CYNICAL AGNOSTIC RECENTLY OBSERVED, THESE SAME "MINISTERS" ARE THE ONES PREACHING AGAINST STATE "WELFARE" OF ANY KIND, EVEN FOR MANY OF THE POOR SO "GRATUITOUSLY" FILLING THEIR COFFERS! BUT EVEN THIS IS NOT ENOUGH TO SATISFY THEM, AS THEY INSIST UPON HAVING IT BOTH WAYS!
SUCH A DISHONESTLY EVER-SWINDLING MENTALITY, COUPLED WITH THE MORE CLASSICALLY "SPIRITUAL" EQUIVALENT OF TODAY'S "LIBERALLY PROGRESSIVE" OR "HUMANISTICALLY ALTRUISTIC" HEDONISTS, BUT IN THE FORM OF AN "OTHERWORLDLY" MOTIVE TO "VIRTUE" MERELY AS A MEANS OF "GETTING TO HEAVEN" AS SUCH, HARDLY SERVES AS THE KIND OF INSPIRATIONALLY PROSELYTIZING EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO HELP GET THE GOVERNMENT MORE IN ALIGNMENT WITH DIVINE STANDARDS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS! INDEED, THESE "CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS" CONVENIENTLY WANTED GOD "OUT," TO SUCH AN EXTENT TO WHERE THEIR ENTIRE STRATEGY HAS BACKFIRED!
SO, THEN, HERE WE CURRENTLY HAVE IT; THE SUPREMELY, CHARACTERISTICALLY PARADIGMAL SPECTACLE OF A PRESIDENT BUSH, WHO BELIEVES IN SIN, AND SINNERS, AND PUNISHMENT. HE'S A SELF-CONFESSED SINNER, TOO; BUT, ONE WHO HAS "REPENTED," AND BEEN "BORN AGAIN," UNLIKE ALL HIS ENEMIES, WHO QUITE CONVENIENTLY "DESERVE" TO DIE, RATHER THAN MERELY HAVING THEIR BLOOD SUCKED AND THEIR FLESH EATEN BY A PREDATOR WHO ALSO QUITE SADISTICALLY LOVES IN THE PROCESS TO TORTURE AND KILL FOR ITS OWN SAKE! THE LIBERAL DILEMMA IS THAT THE VERY KIND WHO "INVENTED SIN" APPEAR TO PROVE IT THE MOST TRUE, AS THE MOST DIABOLICALLY EVIL OF ALL!
IN STILL ANOTHER SENSE, IT'S "AS IF" THESE "LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES" ARE BEING DIVINELY DISCIPLINED, IN THEIR "ALTRUISTIC" HEDONISM, THEIR "QUID PRO QUO" BASTARDIZATION OF THE INTRINSICALLY-ROOTED SACREDNESS OF THE MORAL LAW, WHICH THEY ONLY WISH TO SELFISHLY, INSTRUMENTALLY, AND "EPICUREANLY" EXPLOIT; EVEN DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEIR CHARACTERISTIC INTERPRETATION OF ITS ACTUAL CONTENT IS OTHERWISE SO MUCH MORE CONVENIENTLY ACCURATE, IN MANY VITAL WAYS, THAN THAT OF THE "CHRISTIANLY REPUBLICAN STOICS" WHO ARE BEING PERMITTED TO SO OVERWHELMINGLY OPPRESS THEM WITH A CLASSICALLY, DEMONICALLY ROMAN CATHOLIC COUNTERFEIT OF GOD.
BUT, JUST AS PRESIDENT BUSH, THE "BORN AGAIN" GADFLY, SERVES AS A "THORN IN THE FLESH" OF THESE "LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES," FOR REASONS THEY ARE NEVERTHELESS AND CONSEQUENTLY REFUSING EVEN MORE VEHEMENTLY TO ACKNOWLEDGE; PRESIDENT BUSH, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO ARE NO LESS STUBBORNLY REFUSING TO LEARN FROM HIS MISTAKES, LIKEWISE HAVE A BY NOW ALARMINGLY IMMINENT "DAY IN COURT" COMING, FROM THE VERY PAPAL THRONE WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL SEAT OF SATAN, THE RULER OF THIS EARTHLY DISPENSATION. THE TRAGICALLY, DIVINELY UNINTENDED IRONY IS THAT "PROTESTANT FUNDAMENTALISM" MAKES EVEN ROMAN CATHOLICISM--LOOK GOOD!!!
IT WOULD TRULY BE QUITE SLAPSTICALLY COMICAL, IN ITS OUTRIGHT ABSURDITY, IF NOT BLASPHEMOUSLY IRREVERENT, IN THE PROCESS, AS WELL AS INCALCULABLY PAINFUL, IN ITS EFFECTS, TO BEHOLD; THAT IS, WHILE "TRANSCENDENTALLY" OBSERVING THE CARNALLY SYMBIOTIC EXTENT TO WHICH TODAY'S BOURGEOIS CAPITALIST "LIBERALS" AND "CONSERVATIVES" NO LESS GRUDGINGLY AND BITTERLY DESERVE THAN DESPERATELY BUT UNGRATEFULLY NEED ONE-ANOTHER'S OWN MUTUALLY "BALANCING" SUPPORT! BUT, THEN, LIKE UNTO THE VERY ONE WHO SHALL AGAIN BE "HEALING" THIS "CLEAVAGE," VIA A UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE, EVEN KANT HAD NO MORE FOR WHICH TO HOPE, IN THIS WORLD, THAN A HUMANLY, RATIONALLY, UNIVERSALLY, DEISTICALLY ATTAINABLE "KINGDOM OF ENDS," AS OPPOSED TO A DIVINELY AND BIBLICALLY, PROPHETICALLY PREDETERMINED UNFOLDING WHICH IS ACTUALLY QUITE HISTORICALLY AND TELEOLOGICALLY THE CASE.
MANY WILL VIEW THESE EFFORTS TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE AS BEING "EXTREMELY PRESUMPTUOUS" AT BEST, WHILE MAKING THE QUESTION ONE OF "MY" AUTHORITY, OR RATHER THE LACK OF IT. BUT THE AUTHORITY IS NOT IN THE PERSON, LEST THE PERSON HIMSELF FAITHFULLY AND ACCURATELY REFLECT THE KINDS OF PRINCIPLES WHICH CAN AND MUST, HERE, BE RATIONALLY, THUS VERIFIABLY FORMULATED WITH THE BUILT-IN ANALYTICAL PRECISION OF A SPINOZA. THOSE WHO TYPICALLY SEARCH FOR ONLY A HUMAN AUTHORITY FIGURE, RATHER THAN THE RATIONALLY AND INTERNALLY SELF-VERIFYING FOUNDATIONS OF SCRIPTURE ITSELF, ARE FALLING INTO THE CLASSICALLY PAPAL FALLACY HERE.
POOR JESUS!!! LOOK WHO HE HAD TO TELL THEM ALL THAT HE ACTUALLY WAS!!!--JUST AS HIS HEAVENLY FATHER HAD A PURPOSE, IN MOVING HIM TO TRY TELLING THEM RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS MINISTRY--LUKE 4:16-30!!! MOST "CHRISTIANS" TODAY WOULD BE AMONG THE FIRST TO NAIL HIM UP AGAIN, ALONG WITH PERHAPS ANYBODY BUT THE POPE HIMSELF WHO DARED MAKE SUCH A CLAIM! THEY'VE CERTAINLY SNEERED IT AT ME, UNTIL IT'S UNBEARABLY RINGING IN MY EARS: "WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, JESUS?" WELL, IN A VERY REAL SENSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, I CERTAINLY AM!!!--MATTHEW 25:31-46!!!--IF I REALLY AM INDWELT AND EMPOWERED BY HIS SPIRIT (ROMANS 8:9-11), AS WELL AS RIGHTFULLY DIVIDING HIS WORD OF TRUTH (II TIMOTHY 2:15).
IS THE UNITED STATES A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY? WELL, ABOVE AND BEYOND THE FACT THAT ITS TRADITION IS PRIMARILY CALLED BY THAT NAME (ALONG WITH THE INSUFFICIENCY OF ANY SUCH BASIS, ALONE, TO FORMALLY, LEGALLY ESTABLISH THE CLAIM); SUCH A QUESTION IS INHERENTLY TIED TO STILL ANOTHER QUESTION: WAS JESUS ACTUALLY THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, WHO DIED, AND ROSE AGAIN, THEREAFTER TO ASCEND, JUST AS HE SHALL RETURN IN LIKE FASHION (ACTS 1:9-11) (I CORINTHIANS 15), to RULE, QUITE "UNDEMOCRATICALLY" (THANK GOD!), WITH A ROD OF IRON (Revelation 2:27)? IS THE BIBLE THE INFALLIBLY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD (II TIMOTHY 3:16) (II PETER 1:20-21)?
IF THESE THINGS BE OBJECTIVELY TRUE, THEN ANY NATION WHICH CLAIMS THE TRUTH ITSELF AS THE BASIS OF ITS AUTHORITY IS AUTOMATICALLY DECLARING ITSELF TO BE CHRISTIAN, WHETHER IT REALIZES AS MUCH OR NOT; AND AS SURELY AS THE PHYSICAL WATER OF LIFE ONE DRINKS IS CHEMICALLY COMPOSED OF H20, REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANYBODY THINKS (ROMANS 3:1-4). THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID EVEN QUITE "INADVERTENTLY" MAKING THE CLAIM, IS BY FORMALLY DENYING THE LORDSHIP OF CHRIST AS A NATION (IF NOT KNOWINGLY REJECTING HIM AS LORD); OR ELSE BY FORMALLY DECLARING, BUT NOT ONLY IGNORANTLY, RATHER THAN ALSO QUITE INSINCERELY, WHILE PERHAPS WILFULLY DECEIVING EVEN AND ESPECIALLY ITSELF, THAT ITS ULTIMATE VALUE IS--THE TRUTH!!!
BUT THE RAZOR'S EDGE (REVELATION 3:15-17; 20:4), OF ANY ALLEGED "NEUTRALITY," WHICH MOST, ON BOTH SIDES, AT LEAST QUITE GRUDGINGLY ACCEPT AS THE ORIGINALLY, OFFICIALLY-INTENDED INTERPRETATION OF THE STATE'S CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION IN THIS RESPECT, IS, "AT LEAST" IN SPIRIT, EXTREMELY SHARP INDEED (MATTHEW 6:24); AND PARTICULARLY SO, NOT ONLY WHEN IT COMES TO BEING INHERENTLY INCAPABLE OF TAKING "NEITHER SIDE," THAT IS, BOTH SIDES, ON VARIOUS MORALLY CRUCIAL ISSUES; BUT, ALSO, TO THE EXTENT THAT ATHEISM HAS THE STRUCTURALLY FALLACIOUS "EDGE" OF NOT BEING CONSIDERED, TO EITHER SIDE, AS A "RELIGION," OR, THAT IS, A FUNDAMENTAL VIEW OF REALITY AS SUCH, THUS NO LESS FALLACIOUSLY INCREASING THE LEVERAGE OF ITS CAPACITY TO INHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THE VERY NAME OF GOVERNMENT.
In the Spirit of Elijah,
Richard O'Donnell
P.S. Here's a SHORT though SYMBOLICALLY, INSTRUCTIVELY COGENT "RIDDLE," to ponder, in conjunction with the above: Is the United States Supreme Court as "RIGHT" as it is BECAUSE IT'S the "Supreme Court," or, is it, MUCH LESS GUARANTEEABLY, the Supreme Court, BECAUSE it is RIGHT? And, again, for a most dramatically moving breakdown of how all this logic fits together, it can be very clearly distilled from a careful study of the "trial" of Tribune Marcellus Gallio (Richard Burton), presided over by Caligula (Jay Robinson), during the last fifteen minutes of The Robe.