Tuesday, January 22, 2008

The infidels are at the gate!

I've spent the last couple of years on this blog making sure that I kept an objective point-of-view on most things that I've posted. Man...it's getting to be REALLY difficult where faith is concerned.

What in the world is so horrible about the separation of church and state?? I'll be honest in saying that I'm really not in the mood to post this right now. In fact....it's a double whammy because 1) I'm still not in the mood to post anything to this bog and 2) I'm really not in the mood to talk on this subject. Therefore, I fear that I will probably sound like a completely un-thinking ass about anything that I say. However, at least I will have said something.

My questions for the masses:

Would you want someone else's faith residing over your life? If the country DID advocate god in the White House and a Hindu was elected into office, would you want Vishnu guiding the future principles of your children? Of course, I have nothing against Hinduism or Hindu people. I'm just pulling an example out of my butt. The concept sounds convenient when someone is in office who at least shares a modicum of your beliefs, but when the tables are turned and you find that it's YOU who is among the "mis-represented" in the highest office in the country, the outlook is a little less palatable.

How can we choose a national deity (or set of deities) when the country can't seem to agree on anything itself? The funny thing is that so many people are sooooo hell-bent (no pun intended) in getting a deity into the oval office that they haven't even stopped to consider what would happen next. It's like Captain Ahab; all I want at the moment is to get this spear into that big frickin' Sperm Whale. I really don't need to worry about what would have to be done next. Methinks that Ahab should have read my blog at some point. All other tangent arguments aside, this country is supposed to be a representative democracy. I invite you to check out this chart and tell me what doctrine would fairly and justly represent her 300 million-strong population.

When is it enough? Seriously!! Not too long ago, Atheists were actually somewhat tolerated. And then, after a while, Atheists became the bad guys. "Don't be like those darned atheists!!". As long as you didn't have a concrete faith in the non-existence of the divine, you were fine. However, after a while, "Agnostics are evil too. If you can't believe in the divine, then something is wrong with you.". If you think I'm trying to exaggerate, just know that this is the ONLY cog in the wheels between myself and one of my best friends. It's often difficult to love someone so much as to consider them family only to have conversations like these completely ruin an evening. Anyway...back to the topic at hand. So, here we are at the precipice of debate....the faithful on one side, and the faithless on the other. Where is the logical conclusion of this process? Next...."There's something wrong with you if you're not Christian." (which is sadly coming sooner than we know). After that, "All non-baptists need to be censored.". And then, a few years later, "Only SOUTHERN Baptists should be a allowed to run for public office.". I know that this progression sounds silly, and it actually is, to a degree. These are the things that wars are fought over.

Is it really so hard to believe that something so omnipotent can really be so impotent when it comes to dealing with judgement and punishment? There's an old saying....."God may or may not exist. However, for the sake of his reputation, I hope he doesn't.". Who are we to think that God can't take care of himself? Why does man feel the need to act the judge, jury, and executioner by proxy for the divine almighty? Honestly....what even makes us think that we're even close to being qualified to do that?? If someone wants to fornicate, divorce, or whatever, I think that's between them and God. (I am, of course, referring to secular law ONLY). I don't see it as being anyone else's business. God can take care of him/herself in the enforcement of any covenants that he has had with man.
Ok. I've run out of steam on this topic for today. There was so much more I wanted to say, but I can't write this post any more. If you understand ANYTHING about what I've written, you need to understand THIS:

I'm not against God in any way, shape, or form. This chicken-scratch that I've compiled here gives testimony neither way. I just don't understand how we are supposed to begin coupling church and state when there is no national "church" that represents everybody.

After re-reading, I find this post very poorly thought out and hardly structured at all. However, at least now I have said something.


Bone Sucker said...

I don't figure I'll know until I'm dead,so....

I'm perfectly happy to let everyone believe what they like. I suppose if there was concrete evidence of the validity of any one religion I might not have such a laissez faire attittude. Since there isn't, you are the only person you have to go to bed with at night and should act accordingly.

Jason C. Miller said...

This was the post I was hoping you'd skip. Blah. It is hardly my finest hour.

I agree with you. To each his own. However, my problem comes in when each tries to make his own the own of others as well. I sometimes feel that that is where we are headed.


Bone Sucker said...

Why would you want me to skip it?

It is human nature when you are excited about something to share it, and I don't mind that; again if someone presented something concrete to me, I might feel differently. I also like to know where people I care about stand, so that I can respect their stance whether it is parallel with my own or not. I don't prescribe to a particular religion in a semi-educated manner. Sharing, ok, I'll take that.

What worries me is the reason exactly said persons would want me to share their opinion. (I'm going to say 'you' but I don't mean YOU.)


If you are truly excited and just want to share it, you would have no problem allowing me my own opinion after I listened to yours, would you?

If you were insecure and needed validation, you would argue it until I agreed with you, right?

Since I cannot produce concrete evidence one way or the other, I wouldn't be able to prove you wrong.

And likewise, you wouldn't be able to prove yourself right.

Sounds like an ugly argument to me - no one wins.

Ever wonder if it's really a religious version of 'mass hysteria'? If there were a majority, then the majority wouldn't be 'wrong' or 'right', they would be 'normal'. Validation at its best.

And sadly also the proposed operation of our 'state'. "The majority rules."

Hmmm, I could go on for a long while... but I think instead I'll just say I agree with you. I have a similar opinion, even if for different reasons.

Jason C. Miller said...

I think you're too smart for me to associate with.

Bone Sucker said...

I sincerely doubt that; you shouldn't underestimate yourself.

-conveniently deteled 'in case your mother reads here' dialog-

I am sorry about your friend.

Jason C. Miller said...

It's ok. She still loves me. Once upon a time, I was supposedly destined to marry her daughter. Those times have come and gone. :)

Bone Sucker said...

That doesn't lesson it's impact; I'm still sorry.

Would it be really awful of me to say I'm glad it didn't work out?