Senator Byrd Upholds 50 Years of Tradition; "Just say No to the Negress!" said Byrd, voicing his support for Secretary of State Rice
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Why Christians are Hated
Previously I had posted a position in support of Christians' rights to worship and celebrate in a public forum. It seems to be in vogue to Christian bash and Christian hate. I try not to hate, but two weeks ago I experienced an example of how Christians can be hated.
The weekend after the tsunami disaster I was listening to a multi-faith talk show hosted by a rabbi, a Priest, and a Minister. The topic was "Why does God Allow Disasters to Happen?" I was stunned to hear in 45 minutes several callers state that God sent the tsunami to punish the godless sinners (at least the non-Christian god sinners). These people actually believed that Christ punished the thousands of people because their form of worship. I find these types of Christians very distasteful and can see why the more militant may even hate these Christians.
It is very arrogant to believe that Christ would intervene in matters of faith in such a way. It is also very arrogant to believe that one is a member of the one true faith or church ( of course that excludes your faith or church as it really is the one true faith or church-- of course).
Their is a macrocosmic universality to all faiths. The virgin mother and sacrificed son mythos was around a good 1200 years before JC hit the ground. Krishna, Osiris, Thoth, Isis and others were involved in some form of a "Passion" mystery. To believe that only your god is the only entity that died and arose again may be a sign of faith but is very narrow minded in the grand scheme of things (of course this does not apply to your god who is the one true god unlike all the others--of course).
The Christians that believe that the tsunami was God's vengeful wrath may be right, but how many times have you been miffed or insulted by a know-it-all who is always right. This type of Christian makes it easy to be a target of hate and in fact, the vengeful wrath concept is rather hateful itself. With all the hatred that is occurring in the world we don't need more gas thrown on the proverbial ecumenical fire (of course you are allowed to hate as you believe in the one true God and his vengeful wrath is a matter of your faith--of course).
The weekend after the tsunami disaster I was listening to a multi-faith talk show hosted by a rabbi, a Priest, and a Minister. The topic was "Why does God Allow Disasters to Happen?" I was stunned to hear in 45 minutes several callers state that God sent the tsunami to punish the godless sinners (at least the non-Christian god sinners). These people actually believed that Christ punished the thousands of people because their form of worship. I find these types of Christians very distasteful and can see why the more militant may even hate these Christians.
It is very arrogant to believe that Christ would intervene in matters of faith in such a way. It is also very arrogant to believe that one is a member of the one true faith or church ( of course that excludes your faith or church as it really is the one true faith or church-- of course).
Their is a macrocosmic universality to all faiths. The virgin mother and sacrificed son mythos was around a good 1200 years before JC hit the ground. Krishna, Osiris, Thoth, Isis and others were involved in some form of a "Passion" mystery. To believe that only your god is the only entity that died and arose again may be a sign of faith but is very narrow minded in the grand scheme of things (of course this does not apply to your god who is the one true god unlike all the others--of course).
The Christians that believe that the tsunami was God's vengeful wrath may be right, but how many times have you been miffed or insulted by a know-it-all who is always right. This type of Christian makes it easy to be a target of hate and in fact, the vengeful wrath concept is rather hateful itself. With all the hatred that is occurring in the world we don't need more gas thrown on the proverbial ecumenical fire (of course you are allowed to hate as you believe in the one true God and his vengeful wrath is a matter of your faith--of course).
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Church/State separation?
As will become clear in the following days, I have experienced some scaring of a Christian sect that had pre-millenial tendencies. In fact, now I would consider myself a believer in God in the western esoteric tradition--whatever that means, but I'm becoming more troubled by the increasing pressure to remove religion from any public event (public in the governmental and general sense). This exclusion of faith seems to be directed specifically to Christians, for now.
The concern is there is no specific mention of separating Faith and State in the founding documents. True, the founding fathers structured the branches of government to specifically not have a state sanctioned Church, e.g. the Anglican Church in Great Britain or the Roman Catholic Church in most of Europe. Notice they did not restrict religion or faith. Indeed, the motivation of many Europeans to come to North America was the ability to practice their religion without persecution (many Wiccans would debate that this was true for all "religions"). But, Protestants, Calvinists, Shakers, Quakers and even Jews had comparative freedom to worship compared to England and the European continent. The distinction is the difference between Church and religion or faith.
Fast forward to the 21st century and we now see any expression of religion or faith is increasingly becoming censored. The mention of God is politically incorrect. Many Christians are quick to point out that the United States was founded on the Judeo/Christian principles. This may be true to in a general sense, but it is also this argument that causes many of the attacks on the Christians' God. There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers generally believed in a God, but with some research one can discover that it was not always the God of the Christian church.
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. George Washington attended the Methodist church but it has been documented that he never partook in the sacrament. Likewise, Washington was an extremely active Freemason. Benjamin Franklin was a member of the notorious Hellfire Club while in Great Britain. The point is these men believed in a higher power, be it the Great Architect, the Ain Soph or the Big Bang. So this should satisfy most arguments against demonstrating one's faith in a Supreme Being-- except for that of the Atheists'.
To the Atheists the mentioning of God in public places ( the Pledge of Allegiance, In God We Trust on the dollar bill, the Ten Commandments, etc.) , in their view, forces religion upon them. It goes against their beliefs and therefore is a breach of the establishment clause.
Atheists have a set of beliefs and principles. One atheist explained to me that logic and common sense is their Supreme Being. To just have faith to believe in a Supreme Being does not fit into the Logic Matrix of many Atheists. However, logic cannot explain some of the mystical, magickal and metaphysical experiences that have been documented. Aleister Crowley, a self-professed atheist, invoked and evoked spirits, angels, daemons, gods, or archetypical portion of his complex psyche. Whether these were actual spirit beings or projections of his mind these activities do not fit into the Logic Matrix of atheism. Likewise, stigmata, floating, astral travel of yogis, mystics and magicians are not logical. Interestingly, advances in quantum physics may give logical answers to how these "magickal actions" happen. So what's the point?
The point is all humans have a set of beliefs concerning God, religion or faith that will conflict with others. Many Christians would consider me a Pagan, while Pagans would opine that I've just read to many books on Qabbalah and really don't know what are faith and magick. Currently, it is politically correct to exclude the trappings of Christianity from our popular culture. This offends the Christians. Yet, the display of Christian dogma offends the Atheists. The existence of Israel offends many Muslims. Recently, (post 9/11) many of different faiths were offended by Muslims, Arabs or anybody that looked Arabic. And of course we are always pissed at the French.
My point is we have a right, a self-evident product of natural law, to worship... or not worship. We don't have the right to not be offended--actually, true diversity ( the current quasi-religion of many academics and elitist) is many faiths, creeds, races, lifestyles co-existing. Being offended is a natural by product of Diversity and Freedom, which was bestowed upon us by, not the Founding Fathers, but God and all that entails. Do what thy wilt, shall be the whole of the law.
The concern is there is no specific mention of separating Faith and State in the founding documents. True, the founding fathers structured the branches of government to specifically not have a state sanctioned Church, e.g. the Anglican Church in Great Britain or the Roman Catholic Church in most of Europe. Notice they did not restrict religion or faith. Indeed, the motivation of many Europeans to come to North America was the ability to practice their religion without persecution (many Wiccans would debate that this was true for all "religions"). But, Protestants, Calvinists, Shakers, Quakers and even Jews had comparative freedom to worship compared to England and the European continent. The distinction is the difference between Church and religion or faith.
Fast forward to the 21st century and we now see any expression of religion or faith is increasingly becoming censored. The mention of God is politically incorrect. Many Christians are quick to point out that the United States was founded on the Judeo/Christian principles. This may be true to in a general sense, but it is also this argument that causes many of the attacks on the Christians' God. There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers generally believed in a God, but with some research one can discover that it was not always the God of the Christian church.
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. George Washington attended the Methodist church but it has been documented that he never partook in the sacrament. Likewise, Washington was an extremely active Freemason. Benjamin Franklin was a member of the notorious Hellfire Club while in Great Britain. The point is these men believed in a higher power, be it the Great Architect, the Ain Soph or the Big Bang. So this should satisfy most arguments against demonstrating one's faith in a Supreme Being-- except for that of the Atheists'.
To the Atheists the mentioning of God in public places ( the Pledge of Allegiance, In God We Trust on the dollar bill, the Ten Commandments, etc.) , in their view, forces religion upon them. It goes against their beliefs and therefore is a breach of the establishment clause.
Atheists have a set of beliefs and principles. One atheist explained to me that logic and common sense is their Supreme Being. To just have faith to believe in a Supreme Being does not fit into the Logic Matrix of many Atheists. However, logic cannot explain some of the mystical, magickal and metaphysical experiences that have been documented. Aleister Crowley, a self-professed atheist, invoked and evoked spirits, angels, daemons, gods, or archetypical portion of his complex psyche. Whether these were actual spirit beings or projections of his mind these activities do not fit into the Logic Matrix of atheism. Likewise, stigmata, floating, astral travel of yogis, mystics and magicians are not logical. Interestingly, advances in quantum physics may give logical answers to how these "magickal actions" happen. So what's the point?
The point is all humans have a set of beliefs concerning God, religion or faith that will conflict with others. Many Christians would consider me a Pagan, while Pagans would opine that I've just read to many books on Qabbalah and really don't know what are faith and magick. Currently, it is politically correct to exclude the trappings of Christianity from our popular culture. This offends the Christians. Yet, the display of Christian dogma offends the Atheists. The existence of Israel offends many Muslims. Recently, (post 9/11) many of different faiths were offended by Muslims, Arabs or anybody that looked Arabic. And of course we are always pissed at the French.
My point is we have a right, a self-evident product of natural law, to worship... or not worship. We don't have the right to not be offended--actually, true diversity ( the current quasi-religion of many academics and elitist) is many faiths, creeds, races, lifestyles co-existing. Being offended is a natural by product of Diversity and Freedom, which was bestowed upon us by, not the Founding Fathers, but God and all that entails. Do what thy wilt, shall be the whole of the law.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
